David Lauder (talk | contribs) m →My block for 3RR??: Typo |
Courcelles (talk | contribs) m Changed protection settings for "User talk:Vintagekits": Restore prior. ([Edit=Require administrator access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{collapse top}} |
|||
{{warning| If you are here to point out my spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, poor punctuation or general cavalier attitude to everything, kindly leave now. I'm not perfect; you're not perfect; there's only ever been one man in this world who's ever been perfect and they [[Jesus|crucified Him]]}} |
|||
== Since you continue to be disruptive.. == |
|||
Comments from unregistered users will be deleted! |
|||
Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Welcome to Wikipedia! == |
|||
:Yawn! exact reason?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Personal attacks and disruptive editing. I've brought it up here. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_more_eyes_on_a_volatile_situation_regarding_The_Troubles] [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am quite astounded by your retarded logic! Not sure why because I shold come to expect it to be honest. So who am I attacking and what is the attack because I cant figure it out.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::So why is vvvkts....zzzz....ACCUSED (sorry) of not observing good manners? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.164.222.233|85.164.222.233]] ([[User talk:85.164.222.233|talk]]) 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement.|decline=You clearly don't ''want'' to understand the meaning of [[WP:CIVIL]] or [[WP:NPA]]. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that |
|||
*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <u>or</u> |
|||
*the block is no longer necessary because you |
|||
**understand what you have been blocked for, |
|||
**will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and |
|||
**will make useful contributions instead. |
|||
Please read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)}}[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Hello {{PAGENAME}}, '''[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome]]''' to Wikipedia! |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)|decline=No one appears to have objected to your first edit to that thread, but the second one constituted a personal attack. Per your block log, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I suggest that you consider modifying your behaviour to reflect Wikipedia standards, rather than implying that you are being singled out due to cultural differences. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}} |
|||
I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi! |
|||
:What "second bit" - throw me a fecking bone here and explain exactly why I am actually blocked instead of having me chase my tail.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Domer48&diff=325272555&oldid=325272125 This edit]. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::You dont like making it easy do you. What '''EXACTLY''' is the personal attack that warrants a 48 hour block.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::What a load. You just refactored this page to remove the links to the ANI thread and previous attempts to explain it to you. I'm revoking your talk page access for the duration of your block to avoid you're wasting any more of other's time with this foolishness. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 00:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The fact that, considering you have a block list that is literally as long as my forearm you still don't get what you're doing wrong here makes me a sad panda. Which, in itself is odd, since I'm not a panda. It ''does'' still make me sad, though. Have you ever considered maybe going somewhere else on the internet? [[User:HalfShadow|HalfShadow]] ([[User talk:HalfShadow|talk]]) 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::(EC x2) I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FElonka_2&diff=148653326&oldid=148650313 not always been] Elonka's biggest fan, and for all I know she may not have made the correct decision as far as Domer48 is concerned. There is nothing wrong with questioning the probation itself. To that end, however, it is unnecessary to disparage Elonka herself; a review can take place without such comments, which are not conducive to a productive editing environment. As a corrollary of what you can see at the top of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]], comment on the action, not on the administrator. If you really feel it is necessary to review an administrator's action on a wider scale, there are other venues for that which are more productive. Likewise, note that [[WP:NPA]] says that "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruption." Much as in the case of the probation mentioned here, your history of being blocked for personal attacks was likely considered as a contributing factor when deciding to block your account. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Ban== |
|||
If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a [[wiki]], so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the '''{{MediaWiki:edit}}''' link. Wikipedia convention is to [[Wikipedia:be bold|be bold]] and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at [[Wikipedia:how to edit a page|''How to edit a page'']], or try out the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|Sandbox]] to test your editing skills. |
|||
As you already know, you have been indef'd and banned per [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=325364881&oldid=325364790 this ANI thread]. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::FYI to all the summary in the block log was the result a wrong pasting job. It should have been [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=325364881&oldid=325364790 this] <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have restored your email and talkpage rights. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thank you, Rlevse. Vintagekits, please set a good example with your communications. I've vouched for you to a certain degree. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Jehoch, which is in effect, SirFozzie's 48 hours block or Rlevse's indefinate ban?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 10:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....== |
|||
You might like some of these links and tips: |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
*'''some [[Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset|General guidance]].''' |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:WikiDefender_Barnstar.png|100px]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]] and the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]. |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
*Find out how to [[WP:RV|revert]], [[Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages|move and merge]] pages. |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Sign your posts on talk pages]] using four tildes (~~~~). |
|||
*Add yourself to the [[Wikipedia:New user log|New user log]] and a [[WP:RNB|regional notice board]] |
|||
*Ask questions at the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|Village pump]] or [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help desk]]. |
|||
*Use the [[Wikipedia:Show preview|Show preview]] button |
|||
*Provide an [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|Edit summary]] |
|||
*Add the correct [[WP:ICT|image copyright tag]] to any images you upload |
|||
*Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Consensus|Consensus of standards]] |
|||
*Create a [[Wikipedia:User page|User page]] |
|||
If, for some reason, you are unable to [[Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page | fix a problem yourself]], feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the '''[[Wikipedia:Boot Camp|Wikipedia Boot Camp]]''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{{helpme}}</code>''' on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. |
|||
Wikipedia has a vibrant [[Wikipedia:Community_Portal | community of contributors]] who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are [[meta:IRC Channels | IRC Channels]], where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance. |
|||
If you have any questions, feel free to '''ask me''' on [[User talk:Wiki alf|my talk page]]. Thanks and happy editing! -- [[User:Wiki_alf|Alf]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Wiki_alf|melmac]]</font></sup> 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
cheers, its saturday is I'm am going to work on it for most of the day - come back and have a look at it later as there are plenty of things that I do not know how to do, cheers [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 11:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Well done== |
|||
These are mainly good edits you are making now. Maybe just check and correct after you make a link that it works. Anyway, no hard feelings, and happy editing. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==MacManus== |
|||
All 4 versions of the name should now point to the article '''Joseph MacManus''' weggie[[User:Weggie|Weggie]] 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Good man Weggie, I've also put in link to a reference on Seam MacManus also [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::No probs the name change to Joe, he already has a re-direct for that name so you could use that page if necessary...[[User:Weggie|Weggie]] 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yep, sorry was working on another page! Had another look - the only other piece of information that I removed was the claim that he was a B-Special. I was going to check to see if this can be verified before I re-added. Which bits are you concerned with apart from this? Will be leaving the site until tomorrow night in about 10 mins...[[User:Weggie|Weggie]] 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am going to revert it and input the minor editing remarks that you suggest and you verify the details in the book, have you got the book? [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== John Duddy == |
|||
Hi Vintage, |
|||
you have missunderstood the Irish amatuer boxing situation. There is no Irish team or British NI team, there is a combined All Ireland team. Duddy fought as a British representative on the All Ireland team not for the Irish team. |
|||
see http://www.iaba.ie/boxing/main/IABA-profile.htm |
|||
You dont need to give me that link to his profile - I posted in on his page. You obviously havent a clue what you are talking about, I know the IABA situation, I should do my family has been through it at all levels! Duddy didnt fight as a British representative he fought for the All Ireland team - there is no distinction between the fighters, trained in Ireland, based in Ireland coached in Ireland and won his Irish title in Dublin, Ireland. If he wanted to fight through the British system he would have fought in the commonwealth games - he didnt! [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Please recheck the facts, the IABA is a transnational body, it is not the Irish team. To state that is missrepresenting the situation. |
|||
you need to recheck the facts, both countries fight under the banner of Ireland and the flag of the repblic of ireland and no distinction is made between either country - its based on a provincial system [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 18:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Yes excactly as you say, both countries fight under the banner of Ireland, thus saying Duddy fought for the Irish team is missleading as it implies that he fought for that team alone and not the combined team. |
|||
OWNED!! |
|||
==POV== |
|||
The term IRA "Volunteer" is [[POV]], just as is "terrorist" (although the latter is accurate); please use "member" from now on or this matter will have to go to Arbitration, especially if you continue to revert other people's edits without notice or explanation. |
|||
[[User:Hope Springs Eternal|Hope Springs Eternal]] 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* Thats YOUR POV, its factually incorrect but its your POV nonetheless [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Operation Flavius]]== |
|||
I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you regarding Operation Flavius and wrote my response on the 'Discussion' page for [[Operation Flavius]]. I wrote: |
|||
:Since they were immediately killed, they had no chance to defend themselves so we don't know what their personal intentions were. Meanwhile, since the British government had infiltrated the PIRA with numerous spys - including bomb experts - we don't know how reliable the evidence was against them. Do we? See the following references regarding just some of the 'outed' British spys within the PIRA: [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200603u/stakeknife Matthew Teague talks about "Double Blind," his extraordinary profile of a double agent who helped undermine the IRA], [http://www.counterpunch.org/browne05292003.html 'Stakeknife' The Story of Britain's Army Spy at the Top of the IRA], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4877516.stm Sinn Fein British agent shot dead] Because of the infiltration with bomb expert spys into the PIRA, no one will ever know what [[false flag]] operations were carried out by the British spys - rather than any PIRA members.[[User:Bcsurvivor|Bcsurvivor]] 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Paddy Cunningham== |
|||
Hi, I think you put your Paddy Cunningham AFD contribution in the wrong place. It ended up at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lothlorien Hall]]. --[[User:Edchilvers|Edchilvers]] 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*Sorry, its my first time deleting anything [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 13:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**No problem. I have added the correct AFD nomination template. To do this yourself in the future just type subst:afd (including the brackets) at the top of the article--[[User:Edchilvers|Edchilvers]] 13:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***Thanks for the update [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Spanish Gibraltarians== |
|||
Hi Vintage. If you have more references could u please introduce them in the talk page of the article so we can discuss them? |
|||
Thanks and merry christmas |
|||
--[[User:Burgas00|Burgas00]] 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
If you know any, publish their names and we will buy them a one way bus ticket to San Roque. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] |
|||
Vintage, you are getting it all wrong. Please just fix the reference system again without changing the text which is now the consensus version. Thanx--[[User:Burgas00|Burgas00]] 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Why should I have to fix the referncing system that I work hard setting up? If you had any respect you should be the one that edits the article back in from that point. [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Reverting a banned user== |
|||
I noticed that you restored comments posted anonymously by [[User:Gibraltarian]] on [[Talk:History of Gibraltar]]. Please note that Gibraltarian is banned permanently (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian]]) and please also note this part of the [[WP:BAN|banning policy]]: |
|||
:'''Enforcement by reverting edits''' |
|||
:'''Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.''' |
|||
If you see an anonymous user from 212.120.*.* editing Gibraltar-related articles or talk pages, it's almost certainly Gibraltarian again; anything he does can and will be reverted, so please be aware of this! -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Cool, I didnt realised the editor was banned--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Damaen Kelly == |
|||
Your revert seemed to be slightly misguided. Kelly fought for British and Commonwealth titles and thus must have dual nationality. Now, as you seem to be a republican I can understand your position, but it's a fact that Kelly must have British citizenship to fight for Commonwealth and British titles, isn't it? Kelly never fought for Irish titles and never fought in the Republic of Ireland, instead he fought over half his career in England. Its certainly NPOV to suggest that Kelly is a British citizen. |
|||
:You also removed various other updates to an article in urgent need of an overhaul. Maybe actually reading my edit may have helped? [[User:NJW494|NJW494]] 14:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Volunteer debate == |
|||
I think we have a settlement. What do you think? |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage |
|||
[[User:Jdorney|Jdorney]] 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Vintagekits, I think the settlement suggested, whilst not perfect should be accepted, as it allows the use of the term 'volunteer' within articles, the case of v or V, can be agrued as a seperate issue afterwards.--[[User:Padraig3uk|padraig3uk]] 12:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Personal attack warning == |
|||
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}| as you did at [[:{{{1}}}]]}}, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. <!-- Template:Npa3 --> Referring to other editors as "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SCVirus&diff=prev&oldid=98272984 West Brits]" and "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage&diff=prev&oldid=98264657 idiots]" is not acceptable. [[User:Demiurge|Demiurge]] 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point; [[WP:POINT]] == |
|||
Please '''stop''' arbitrarily removing information from articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerry_Adams&diff=prev&oldid=98268461] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=98274728&oldid=98172617] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Green_Book_%28IRA_training_manual%29&diff=98276199&oldid=93798962] as a protest against the proposed compromise in the "IRA volunteer/member" mediation case. [[User:Demiurge|Demiurge]] 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*You are removing all information about the IRA's internal structure from multiple articles as a protest against the proposed settlement in [[Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage]]. This is [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]] and will not be tolerated. Please stop or you are liable to be '''blocked'''. [[User:Demiurge|Demiurge]] 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== What are you up to? == |
|||
Could you please stop deleting my work on the [[PIRA]] page? Why are you doing it? |
|||
[[User:Jdorney|Jdorney]] 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: I have outlined the reasoning for these edits. If wiki users prohibit reference to IRA military structure then they should be deleted if we are to be consistant. [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
While I actually agree with you about the use of the term volunteer, what you are doing is just childish. You can argue your case without vandalising other people's work. Get a hold on yourself! |
|||
[[User:Jdorney|Jdorney]] 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I also agree with you, I am just a bit disillusioned with wiki at the moment and cant believe that POV is able to be pushed over fact just to satisfy some members. Saying that will refrain for the night to calm down. P.S. I did not intend to vandalise, simply edit to make them in line with what whould be the POV which I cant believe is being taken serious [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Please stop your childish vandalising of pages I've worked on.--[[User:Damac|Damac]] 02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Involvement of [[User:Tiocfaidh Ár Lá|Tiocfaidh Ár Lá]] == |
|||
Hi Vintagekits, will you let me know where [[User:Tiocfaidh Ár Lá|Tiocfaidh Ár Lá]] is involved in the previous discussion. Please do not campaign about the mediation cabal. The purpose of mediation cabal is to [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes|resolve the disputes]]. Regards, [[User:Shyam Bihari| <font color="black">'''Shyam'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shyam Bihari|<font color="orange">'''T'''</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Shyam Bihari|<font color="red">'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage&diff=prev&oldid=92807835 here] for his previous involvement. I am not going to campaign on it and infact I am going to stay away from it for a few days as I am so mad that you dont not seem to have grasped the issues at hand and seem to be willing to accept POV over proven facts. [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Creating a category == |
|||
It's the same as creating a page, just add "Category:" before the name. To add a category called "My New Category", type "Category:My New Category" in the searchbox and press Go. BTW you can use <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:helpme|helpme]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> to ask for help. [[User:Jnestorius|jnestorius]]<sup>([[User talk:Jnestorius|talk]])</sup> 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* Please add <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[:Template:db-author|db-author]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> to [[:Category:Irish republicans]] to get it [[WP:SPEEDY|speedy deleted]]. |
|||
* Also, change your userpage category from |
|||
:<nowiki>[[Category:Wikipedians by politics|Wikipedians who support Irish republicanism|Vintagekits]]</nowiki> to |
|||
:<nowiki>[[Category:Wikipedians who support Irish republicanism]]</nowiki> |
|||
Regards, [[User:Jnestorius|jnestorius]]<sup>([[User talk:Jnestorius|talk]])</sup> 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[:Image:Countess Markiewicz.jpg]] == |
|||
Why do we think that this image is in the public domain? When and where was it first published? [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I saw a pamphlet in [[Lissadell House]] that was handed out amongest the Irish American community with this picture on it --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not clear on what you think that might mean in terms of its licensing. It looks very much like it is old enough to have an expired copyright, but it seems we have no information to verify that. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Volunteer shambles== |
|||
Hi, I wrote the greenbook P/IRA article and a few on the IRA during WW2. Noticed your changes and the debate youre involved in about use of volunteer. Nonsense like that from one particular editor drove me off wikipedia but if you want me to chime into that discussion and support you with reference to use of term Volunteer let me know. [[User:Fluffy999|Fluffy999]] 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry I didnt contribute to the page but was called away on business. Looks like it was all agreed on anyway. Thanks for sticking up for accuracy in history. Shouldn't have been an issue to my mind but such is the nature of wikipedia- the encyclopedia any eejit with a library card can hack away at =) [[User:Fluffy999|Fluffy999]] 11:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Northern Ireland Flag== |
|||
I have not broken the 3RR rule- ie more than 3 edits within 24 hours. Please check the history and count the edits if you want to confirm this. |
|||
In any case- the issue at hand is that the Flag is that of Northern Ireland and is used by many offical bodies to represent NI (Football, Rugby, Commonwealth Games etc). There is no basis or source for your claim. In any case, it is not an issue for the precedence template. The issue has been discussed at length in the NI article, and attempts to replace the Flag with that of the Union Flag have been rejected. [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 13:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Firstly, it is not used by the rugby team. Secondly it is not the official flag and has no legal basis and therefore should not be used. For further info see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Northern_Ireland here] [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Why don't you read the article you linked to again? It is the ''de facto'' flag of Northern Ireland and is even displayed in that very article as the flag of Northern Ireland in the "Flags of United Kingdom" section. Looking at your contributions on WP it seems this is far from the first time you've broken the reversion rules and it seems you're more interested in enforcing your own political agenda then of furthering the cause of WP with neutral information. If you're incapable of separating your own personal views from objective information maybe you should consider if WP is really the place for you? [[User:ExNihilo|ExNihilo]] 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== 3RR == |
|||
You have violated [[3RR]] on [[Falklands War]]. I won't block you but please refrain from making more changes to the page in this 24hr period. |
|||
Thanks |
|||
[[User:Sebastiankessel|Sebastian Kessel]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Sebastiankessel|Talk]]''</sup> 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Can you please show me the three reverts as I dont think I have. [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I haven't blocked you, therefore I am not sure why you get upset at me. It was just a friendly warning. I've been an admin for more than a year and fully aware of 3RR so kindly refrain from aggresive comments (such as the one left on my talk page) as I haven't been anything but polite to you. Thank you. [[User:Sebastiankessel|Sebastian Kessel]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Sebastiankessel|Talk]]''</sup> |
|||
:::I would just like you to show me where I have broken the 3rr. I am not getting upset nor am I being aggresive but when someone accuses me of doing something then I would have the deceny to highlight the facts of the issue. As I said I have not broken the 3rr as some of what you may consider reverts were actually edits.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I took the comment "you have to read WP:3R fully" as aggressive. As I said, I haven't blocked you for it and the policy is clear that "undoing edits by another editor" are reverts. In any even, the page is blocked making this point useless. You aren't blocked and won't be if the page continues to be blocked. I am not even required to leave the friendly message, but I did anyway. I don't need to provide evidence or defend my actions, and I'm not planning to do so. I wish you a good day. [[User:Sebastiankessel|Sebastian Kessel]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Sebastiankessel|Talk]]''</sup> 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:So you cant back up your accusation and wont! interesting! Also you consider that a request that you read a wiki policy is aggressive - if you do then you are very sensitive and you are not assuming good faith--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Why not just take Sebastian's advice. You can't fight against everyone here and last very long. he is perfectly correct in what he says, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Proof? Ever heard of it? Try using it--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I dont know what you are talking about, but admins can block you and if you dont remain civil they doubtless will do so, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::They wont because they need a reason, I play within the rules so thats a ridiculous thing to say!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Well good luck to you then, though according to Sebastian he already had a reason, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Yeah his reason was "that I asked him to read a wiki policy!" - really uncivil yeah!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Your are missing the point, if he blocks you arent likely to find an editor to unblock you, you know how lawyers are with the lawyer, and admins do have leeway on interpretation, and your commets to me could easily have been construed as a personal attack, esp if you had carried out your threat. I have been around here long enough to know, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Which comment exactly?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::'''If you engage in vandalism then I will report it - deleting referenced material IS vandalism. I understand your POV, however it is just that - a POV, the facts show otherwise.''' This one about 3 lines down, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:As I hope you can see I may dislike your Falklands views but I am not against you as an editor working to make this a better encyclopedia, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I was only stating facts, sorry if you tyhought it was aggressive, it wasnt meant to be--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Malvinas war?== |
|||
It may exist but it isnt notable enough to be included in the opening, I have never heard of it and it sounds thoroughly obscure given most people either call it The Falklands War or use spanish and call it "La guerra de las malvinas" which we do include in the opening. I am not the only one who thinks this, and the problem with Malvinas war is it gives credibility to the nname Malvinas in English, which I dont believe it has. Please dont threaten to report me for vandalism as you will be considered acting in very poor faith making what you know to be a false claim, edits need to be notable and not merely referenced, and anyway the article is protected, so much for alleged vandalism (lol), [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:If you engage in vandalism then I will report it - deleting referenced material IS vandalism. I understand your POV, however it is just that - a POV, the facts show otherwise.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Referenced material is absolutely subject to deletion if it doesn't fit NPOV and notability, in this case it fits neither. Marking yourself out as POV pushing trouble-maker is, I am sure, not whjat you want, so please dont even threaten to make false vandalsim claims, any good faith edit cannot be considered vandalsims and to acuse 2 editors of bad faith when you know this isnt true will just bring trouble onto ypour own head. The admin would have reverted any vandalsim before locking the page and there can no discussions about the validity of real vandalism on an article's talk page. Your POV comment is a clear indication that you know I have not committed vandalsim, so take this as a warning, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Reminding me what you are warning me of again? Telling the truth, adding referenced material or requiring others to put forward a reason agrument to back up their POV--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::No, threatening to or making false claims of vandalsim, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Oh right, thanks for the warning, c ya!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I wish to second SqueakBox's initial sentiment, and remind you of it. It's an extreme minority POV to use "Malvinas War". [[WP:NPOV]] does '''not''' state all views must be given equal weight. See [[Talk:Falklands War]] for the relative usage levels of this bizzare construction. |
|||
Following other discursive topics herein, I'm forced to deduce your irrational views, and subsequent repeated overriding of concensus view, is related to an anti-British bias related to your overt support for militant Irish Nationalism. May I suggest you consider avoiding British-centric articles if it's going to cause you such perceptual problems? |
|||
--BadWolf42 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[User:Logica]]== |
|||
Hi, Vintage. User:Logica has contacted me as he is slightly concerned about the disputes that have been occuring between you. Although I've told him that you're not obliged to retain warnings on your page, it is also considered bad practice to remove stuff unless you think it was added in 'bad faith'. |
|||
As for your comment at the top of the page; well I can stress to you [[Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies]] for the first one? As for Logica's edits; again it is your priority but its not going to get you anywhere in resolving disputes if you take such a stance. --[[User:Robdurbar|Robdurbar]] 08:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Robdurbar|Robdurbar]], I understand what you are saying but I consider him to be acting in bad faith and to be disrupotive and therefore he and his sockpuppets are not welcome on my talk page. regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Gerry McGeough]]== |
|||
Dear Sir/Madam: |
|||
I am unware of what "controversial" edits I made re McGeough and what "info" I removed. I only fixed a dysfunctional wikilink (Fermanagh and South Tyrone), and made a minor grammatical correction (deleting a comma). |
|||
Is this really controversial?? Pls. respond on your talk page. Thanks. |
|||
Cheers. |
|||
*Sorry bud, mistaken identity - the correct messege is now on the talk page--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Plastic Paddy]] == |
|||
Saw your very weak keep on this article. I agree that it has NPOV and sourcing problems, but I think the real root of the issue is that it is a dicdef. What do you think about shortening as such and transwikying to Wikitionary? [[User:Jefferson Anderson|Jefferson Anderson]] 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== lost virginity == |
|||
Congratulations on your first user page vandalism! [[User:Jefferson Anderson|Jefferson Anderson]] 21:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi mate, which page?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
To ''your'' user page by [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] is what I'm refering to... [[User:Jefferson Anderson|Jefferson Anderson]] 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Can I just point out that isn't vandalism - the sock has been proven to be illegit and indefinantly banned. As per our discussion with the admin, I will not place the tag on Vintage's page, but I still had the right to. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I know - the really has it in for me! ah well!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Beats me. The rules seem to be inconsistently applied. Alt accounts are not forbidden, and if they never edited the same articles, talk pages, etc. there should have been no reason for blocking. There are good reasons for having alternate accounts... say you have a technical specialty but are also interested in bondage or S&M, you might not want to edit both sets of articles from the same account.... AFAIK, that's allowed. [[User:Jefferson Anderson|Jefferson Anderson]] 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
P.S., now they'll probably start saying that I'm your sock or vice versa. Some people... [[User:Jefferson Anderson|Jefferson Anderson]] 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:By the way, does your user name refer to any particular type of vintage kit? And is that kit as in build-it-yourself (American) or kit as in equipment (British)? [[User:Jefferson Anderson|Jefferson Anderson]] 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
More along the equipment type of thing than anything else - its a long story!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Audiophile? Amateur radio? Those are the usages I'm most familiar with... [[User:Jefferson Anderson|Jefferson Anderson]] 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::No, its nothing to do with that, I might have a look into it however--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
OK, then, thanks for answering. See you around... [[User:Jefferson Anderson|Jefferson Anderson]] 22:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Cool bud--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Our relationship == |
|||
Vintage, even though I think you have violtated Wikipedia policies, I'd still like to say that if you took anything in bad faith, then I apologise. If you think I get anything wrong, tell me clearly and calmly why you think it is wrong, and I will double check, and I will gladly apologise. |
|||
With regard the issue of your sockpuppet, we will see what happens as I'm not totally sure of the process. Although I still think it an illegitimate account, we shall leave it to others to decide this,. The same goes for your removal of negative content. |
|||
Conisder this an olive branch... [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:cool--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Uncivil? == |
|||
<s>What is so uncivil about this: ''"Vintagekits your opinion of this article is irrelevant as you clearly state that you are part of the "Wikipedians who support Irish republicanism" Wikipedia category and thus have indicated your bias on an article addressing parts of Irish Loyalism."''</s> |
|||
<s>All i did was state why your objection to the article is irrelevant - essentially the possibility of bias towards a rival ideology.</s> |
|||
<s>And considering you were giving a warning for making personal attacks, it would appear that i'm not as uncivil as some other Wikipedians. So please do not make statements that may come across as hypocritical.</s> |
|||
<s>[[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)</s> |
|||
Striked out by myself [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*If you dont consider that that was uncivil, maybe I should report it and let others decide! I make NO bones about supporting Irish republicans, in fact I am very open about it, however, that does not preculde me from editing any articles.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I've altered my comment to be, i hope, more civil, and i hope you agree. However i still don't think that comment was uncivil, just badly worded. I suppose i should also of used the word "objections to this article" rather than the words "opinion of this article". However your political/ideological opinion does give a very real possiblity of bias to an article on a rival ideology. If i offended i didn't mean to. [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*I have learned that the way to get along on wiki is to solely deal in facts not opinions--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::*The point i was making initially and still am is that the openness on your republican affiliation does give the possibility of bias against a loyalist article. Just as we would both assume a marking for deletion of an article dealing with an Irish republican matter by someone who is open about their loyalism is possibly biased. [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::And vice versa - I dont think that the article satisfies [[WP:N]] just like like i would consider a deletion for an article named [[Republicanism in Ballinascreen]]--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The vice versa would work if i was a loyalist :-P As stated in my progfile i consider myself a Northern Irish Socialist Nationalist which contradicts loyalism. Then why did i create an article on Tobermore Loyalism? Because i am from Tobermore and want all aspects of it chronicled. If there was any republican history in Tobermore i'd have added it to the article and named the article [[Loyalism and Republicanism in Tobermore]]. [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Show Preview == |
|||
I know what you mean lol, its mind boggling, i am using it more though. [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Edit conflict== |
|||
how can yopu lose material to an edit conflict. Your version is stored ready to be copied and pasted, read the instructions (dont want to see you wasting your time), [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I dont understand. Which edit is missing?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: I think this is referring to my post. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Sockpuppet claim== |
|||
Who is the sock[puppet? I noticed you made a sockpuppet claim, can you back it up with |
|||
facts? [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:An un registered user makes his first edit and that happens to be a revert of something that just happens to have been revert 4 times in the last ten minutes! Lol!!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Agreed that this is suspicious. But where is the good faith? Plus, it isn't proven, so you can't say it was a sockpuppet - "suspected" perhaps. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree that is why I posed a question--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I just checked and it is BT ip based in London, and given I was reverting from Central America where I am sweltering in the heat at 6.50pm right now. How is that sockpuppetry (as only JoR 70 and I cant revert further). I would never edit from an ip address myself anyway as it isnt anonymous. I advise you to get solid evidence before making anyy accusations against me as as you know I know how wikipedia works, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Get it right mate, I didnt say it was sock of yours!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Err wrong page, Vintagem, if you think the anon is someone's sock get a user check and make the allegation in the right place, 3RR isnt it. I suggets you remove our comments from 3RR. i assume you are referring to me as nobody else would use a sock in this case, ie I cant edit any more because I would be breaking 3RR, none of the other anti Malvinas as a terme editors would, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I was posting about his 4 reverts within an hour - not the sock situation, regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::(a) you should have warned him, hes a complete newbie (I have now done so) and (b) you need to format properly like I did or they wont take your complaint seriously, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::That is your 3 reverts too. You could run a user check on the latest editor or request partial protection or both, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Damaen Kelly Boxer == |
|||
Proposal of changing the name on this article to Damien Kelly as this is how it is spelled. What do you think?--[[User:McNoddy|McNoddy]] 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Just did a redirect for Damien also--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Point Taken == |
|||
Maybe, I'll find this out by asking people from his area, but people might find his wiki page easier if its done like that. It might even expand the acticle.--[[User:McNoddy|McNoddy]] 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I'll do a redirect page for [[Damien Kelly]]--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Sound just googled it Damaen it seems thats right (-: apologies --[[User:McNoddy|McNoddy]] 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
No probls - give my regards to the Turf!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 15:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I think that WeniWidiWiki is a Scottish editor who has some problems with a certain player playing for the Ireland team. I was looking at the history of his edits, and he wasn't long putting some absolute ''point of view'' stuff onto the article. He used to call himself [[User:HroptR|HroptR]]. The article is still pov-ridden. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/86.42.159.149|86.42.159.149]] ([[User talk:86.42.159.149|talk]]) 18:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
:::I thought as much a chara--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 18:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== 1996 Manchester bombing == |
|||
So you did - my apologies. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*No problems--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Population & Stuff == |
|||
I agree to those edits on the foreign population bit, there is no way to verify them unless M'felt council did a survey which i doubt they'd spend the money on. I didn't word the band CD bit properly either, what i meant was that they contributed more tunes to the CD (16) than any of the other bands on their own (all contributed under 16 each). |
|||
The comment on more developments planned for the town is accurate i just have to find out the Mid Ulster Mail edition that published the planning approvals for a housing and commercial development (edition published within the last few months). Even better i'll just go to the planning permission website and see if they have it archived. |
|||
[[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Cool, all I will say is that even if you can prove [[WP:V]]. clippings from the Mid Ulster Mail do not always prove [[WP:N]], regards --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Nationality of MON == |
|||
Hi. I noticed you were editing the Celtic article to remove the NI flag beside O'Neill's name. Can I ask you please not to do this; O'Neill was born in Northern Ireland and represented NI internationally. If you really want to argue this out I suggest you do it at the article's talk page. Best wishes --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Northern Ireland == |
|||
I take it you know about our rule on [[WP:3RR]]? PLease don't remove the flag again as it would be such a shame to have to block you. Instead you should discuss on the talk page and seek to build a consensus there for the changes you proprose. Best wishes, --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Its been discussed - you are breaking with the consensus my friend--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Downdaroad == |
|||
Well no harm to you, you're a good editor I agree with in most disputes but I suspected you of breaking the rules of wikipedia and was apparently correct. I don't want to get in a fight over this as you seem like a decent chap (and fellow Fenian bastard :P) but I think sockpuppetry is fairly low. I don't really know what happened about that volunteer thing, as I lost interest when it got too big. Was any consensus reached? I don't feel I need to apologise about the usercheck, I was following guidelines (although largely due to curiosity) and no action was taken over it anyway. -- [[User:Pauric|Pauric]] (<small>[[User_talk:Pauric|talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Pauric|contributions]]</small>) 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I didnt think I broke the rules as I sent it to editors of opposing views, anyway, I think "we" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage won] - well we are almost there.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Sir Norman Stronge &c.== |
|||
I have reintroduced the material which was sourced to Sir Norman's article, as per your request. I have also clarified it for those who may not be aware of Sir Norman or the background surrounding his murder.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Sir Norman (as he should be referred to on Wiki.) was not "targetted", whatever upon earth that means, he was murdered and in reprisals to murderes had no connection to. A reader without prior knowledge may think he was implicated in those. Assassination is a factual word, whether you want it to be or not Wiki. guidelines allow it.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Assisnation and murder are both POV. The article is completely POV and biased. God only know how it has lasted this long!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::When someone kills someone it is murder, when they are high-profile it is assassination. Why should this be PoV. You may not like the use of the term but it best illustrates what occured, it's not as if they passed away in their sleeps after some warm milk is it? The were murdered. --[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I suggest you educate yourself further on the terminology as you dont seem to have a full grasp of it at the moment.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I do have weaknesses, but education isn't one of them. This is from wikipedia; "Assassination is the deliberate killing of an important person, usually a political figure or other strategically important individual". I think this applies here.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm glad you found that page - three lines further down - "Assassination itself, along with terms such as terrorist and freedom fighter, is often considered to be a loaded term." - end of story. An apology and I will forget about it!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It may well be considered "loaded", whatever that means, but it doesn't mean that it can't as fact. I suppose JFK just died? No, he was very much assassinated and so was Sir Norman. An apology you shan't have.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::You dont have to wonder what it means - just click on [[loaded term]] and all shall be clear my dear boy--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Wonderful, how very kind. To describe, however, the violent assassination of an elderly former politician, with no provacation, as a death (one has images of a fall down the stairs) in the article of a third party clearly shows either your detachment from relaity or your bias.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah, yeah, this is an encyclopedia not site to wax lyrical about the Tynan Dallas, sorry, Dynasty--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, and nor is it a place to "wax lyrical" about appeasing a vicious murder from a republican perspective. I have made my position clear and am no longer willing to continue this discussion.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Now, now - dont get yourself into trouble - please note [[WP:CIVIL]]--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::On another matter, and these are my parting comments to you, it is also against wiki. policy to follow a particular editors contributions altering them. It is this which you seem to be doing. I shouldn't like to have to have you written up.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 01:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Category:Irish-Scots == |
|||
Thanks for your offer there. There's no prejudice at you getting on with this while the category is up for deletion. Basically, unless the article on a person contains good, [[WP:V|verifiable]] evidence that the person belongs in the category, they need to be removed from it. I'm off out for an hour or so; why not see how many you can get done? Thanks again, --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Tommy Burns == |
|||
Hi again I was interested in your edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Burns_%28footballer%29&curid=1687598&diff=101895655&oldid=101557650 here]. I couldn't see any evidence that Burns claims Irish heritage. Would you be able to provide any? Otherwise I'd say it has to come down. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:And again. The reference you provided, [http://www.nndb.com/people/371/000024299/] only mentions [[Tom Conti]] is of Irish descent. That doesn't seem to justify saying that he is a Roman Catholic. [[Ian Paisley]] is also of Irish descent, for example. Don't get me wrong by the way; it's good that you're adding references to these articles, just make sure the reference actually says what you are using it to verify. Cheers. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Can you please [[Gerard Butler|stop]]? I would really rather you answered the point about the difference between people of Irish descent and Catholics before you make any more edits like that. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have added the reference for Gerard Butler--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I haven't checked it yet. Would you please address the questions above? --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I am working, I dont have you dance around to your timescales!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::If your work is against important Wikipedia principles like WP:V, it will be reverted, though not by me, as I don't revert-war. It would be better for you to go back and amend some of your (apparent) errors I pointed you to, than to make more edits. I know you are making good-faith edits there, but maybe you need to slow down and make fewer, better edits. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 01:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Kudos == |
|||
Bloody good [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Northern_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=101205063 edit]. Nice one (especially as I had edited it just before you!). Well spotted. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Irish == |
|||
Can you think about this edit here please? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Warnock&curid=8923580&diff=102027972&oldid=102027059] You are right that NI didn't exist, but at that time Ireland was not a country either. The use of the tricolour is certainly inappropriate. At least you didn't categorise him as Irish-Scots again, so there is hope for you yet! --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 17:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I've fixed some of your errors from yesterday as you did not do them when I asked you. Can we please be clear that: |
|||
:1) Being of Irish descent is not the same as being a Roman Catholic |
|||
:2) Blogs are not acceptable references, see [[WP:EL]] |
|||
:As I said, you need to slow down and make better edits as it is a lot of work to check your edits and correct your errors. You should be able to do that yourself. Thanks. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Sock accounts == |
|||
Hi Vintagekits, I have a solution for your sock account problem that I think will help you. Go to [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|this page]], and follow the instructions on the page. Last time I checked, multiple accounts on Wikipedia are allowed, '''''as long as you follow the rules'''''. I think you should limit it to two accounts, any more is kind of annoying.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:CJ_King|<span style="color:red;">C</span>]][[User talk:CJ_King|<span style="color:blue;">J</span>]] [[User:CJ King/Wikipedia pages|<span style="color:#b8860b;">King</span>]]</span> 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: What you seem to be avoiding is the fact that the account he wants to use has been banned for breaking these rules. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 14:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Michael Dickson== |
|||
I didn't see anything in the article to indicate he had Irish ancestry and still cannot, so why are you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Dickson&curid=8371478&diff=102265596&oldid=102219598 reverting] the category? Also, can you please not misuse the edit summary "rvv"; [[WP:VAND|Vandalism]] implies a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia, which this certainly was not. Categories, like anything here, meed to be [[WP:V|verifiable]] and as I've tried to exaplain to you before, being a Roman Catholic, being of Irish extraction and having an Irish surname are three different things. Please stop. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Dickson is an Irish name now!?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Not as far as I know. Why did you add him again to the category? --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I see you're at it again. Will you please stop? --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::what are you talking about?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I mean you are making sloppy edits again. Irish is not the same as Catholic. Simply adding the categories without any explanation looks like [[WP:POINT]]. If you add the information to the article along with a verifiable reference then that is fine. Once again, slow down and do a better, more thorough job and that way your edits are more likely to persist. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:stop posting nonsense please--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm choosing to ignore your rudeness for the moment. Take a look at [[:KT Tunstall]]. This is what you should be doing; adding well-referenced information '''to the article''', not just a category. Please slow down and do a better job. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[:Willie Gallacher]] is another example. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I have added the Cat and a reference, that is sufficiant for now. also you are reverting articles where I have provided a reference for the Cat - such as [[John McAllion]]--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== John McAllion == |
|||
See, there's a perfect example of what I mean. By adding the '''information''' to the article you actually improve it as a resource. Growing up in a Catholic family is not the same as being a practising Catholic. I am struggling to understand why you find this so difficult. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 15:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:He stated in parliment - "I was born and grew up in Glasgow, a member of an '''Irish Catholic''' family." - what more do you want?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 15:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I want you to '''add the information to the article''', not just the reference (which on its own is fairly meaningless). I want you to realise that '''the RC category is not for people who grew up in a Catholic family, but for practising Catholics'''. Does that make sense? --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Actually, [[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] you are entirely inaccurate. Look at what the Category: Northern Irish Roman Catholics page states right at the beginning: |
|||
'''''"The following persons from Northern Ireland are or were members of the Roman Catholic Church. Membership does not necessarily indicate personal Christian faith."''''' |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Faint praise == |
|||
Well, your edits have moved from being very very poor to just being poor, so I suppose that's progress. In your hurry to push your POV, you don't seem to be making much effort to actually improve the articles. For example, how can you look at an arrticle like [[:William Crozier (Irish artist)]], and not see that it needs cleanup? Worse than that, your revert removed my tag from it as well as another edit I made. Please make an effort to improve the encyclopedia. Why should I have to search through an entire reference to find your cherished racial distinction? Add the info, make some actual improvements to articles, and I will start to take you seriously as a contributor. At the moment I just see you pushing your POV. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Conversely, your work could be construed by some to have undertones of anti-Irish bigotry - but not I--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Well I'm glad then that we understand each other. The difference is that I am trying to improve the articles I edit. As I said, I see some small progress in your editing, but it needs to get better still. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks Dad, I just wanna make you pwoud!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::LOL, I enjoyed that. In spite of what you may think, I am actually just trying to make he encyclopedia better, as I'm sure in your own way you are too. Don't you think the category we are arguing over looks better with only actual Irish-Scots in it, rather than a random selection of people with Wikipedia articles with Irish surnames? The funniest ones I took out were [[:Terry McDermott]] (no Scottish connections whatsoever) and [[:Michael Ancram]] <s>(added mistakenly by you I think)</s>. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::My mistake, that was [[User:GSR05]]. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, there were some funnies in there. However, I think you will admit that many if not most of those you took out are actually of Irish descent. Proving it is a different matter.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McAllion&curid=397326&diff=102553054&oldid=102445335 Here] is another bad edit I'm afraid. As I explained the RC categories are for people who profess to be practising Catholics. Merely having grown up in a Catholic family is not enough. Unfortunately too, in your haste to revert, you removed information from the article which I had added. This was a bad edit. I invite you to revert it yourself. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Does he say the he is no longer a practising Catholic?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::No. He doesn't say he is not a Muslim either, but we don't add that to the article. The onus of proof is on an editor wanting to add information (including categories). Please revert it as a sign of good faith. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::That is nonsense, does he have to make a statement daily? The edit is good, I have proven he is Catholic and until you can come up with to show he is not then it stays!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The reference states he was in a Catholic family as a child and suggests he identifies as one now, but it does not prove it. It has to be proved. Under [[WP:BLP]] we exercise caution and sensitivity to living people in articles about them. This is not a good edit summary: ''(you got any proof that he is not? Why dont I take a roll call outside Mass on Sunday - crazy!)'' It is not a question of proving he is ''not'' a Catholic. It has to be proved that he ''is''. Otherwise the category shouldn't be used. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::That is an incorrect interpretation of the pocily. If he states that he grew up a Catholic and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that has changed then it is safe to say that he still is a Catholic as once you are baptised into the Catholic church then you remain a member of that church.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well, there's two people saying your interpretation is incorrect, so I suggest you seek a wider consensus before reinstating it. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==James McDade== |
|||
Cheers for that, they neglected to do that. Think their over-use of the word "terrorist" gives a lot away. Vote seems to be mainly in favour. :) [[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I know, he is doing the same on a lot of articles, see also [[Gerard Montgomery]] - in fact just go and see his edit history to see what he has been up to!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 12:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== I just noticed this == |
|||
What is this: "Logoistic is using the fact that you have banned the account against me in arguements to make a point" found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive176#User:Vintagekits.27_sockpuppet_tag. Where have I done this? Please provide evidence. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Stop using my talk page as your own personal forum == |
|||
Vintagekits, you and Logoistic need to stop writing stuff on my talk page that has nothing to do with me. I see no reason to get involved in this with you. Just read the rules and obey them, and you will be fine.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:CJ_King|<span style="color:red;">C</span>]][[User talk:CJ_King|<span style="color:blue;">J</span>]] [[User:CJ King/Wikipedia pages|<span style="color:#b8860b;">King</span>]]</span> 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:That wasnt my intention mate, sorry!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Gerard Mongtomery== |
|||
Provide references, or the article will be deleted. Don't throw nonsense tags at me, as that will not do you any good. You are on the verge of being blocked. [[WP:BLP]] is policy. Without verifiable references, we '''''cannot''''' keep your allegations. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Blocked for what, writing well referenced articles?? They are not my allegations they are the [[Daily Mail]]s. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Repeating the same claim doesn't wash. No, for recreating libelous claims without evidence. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am only repeating them because they are true and you are ignoring them for some reason. Remember I am not the only editor who has used this article as a source/reference!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am ignoring them because you haven't provided them. The links you provide are not [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and fail our policy at [[WP:BLP]]. Have you read BLP? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I cannot believe you deleted the other article without a prompt or even any debate! This is amazing!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I repeat. Have you read BLP? Especially, ''Jimmy Wales has said:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."''? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Why did you delete the other articlres??--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Are you not reading what I am writing? I deleted them because they were not only poorly sourced, '''''they were not sourced at all'''''. As the quote above says, it should be removed, aggressively. Provide '''''reliable''''' references, and the articles can be recreated. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::How can I access the history of those pages so I dont have to totally rewrite them from scratch as I dont think I have the stomach for that. Also you need to calm down and discuss these things as you are going way over board. Did you even ask EricR where he got that quote? Thats seems like it would have been the first thing a reasonible admin would have done.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Provide reliable sources on the article Talk pages and I will undelete them. And I didn't need to ask Eric where he got the quote, as he didn't provide a link, despite multiple requests for one. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:So you only consider as source verifiable if its on the internet? That is not standard policy!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::No, but we only have the word of the bloggers and forumeers of the existence of the Daily Mail link, when the Daily Mail's own archives contain no mention of the people. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Nothing is stopping you getting a hardcopy of the article direct from the DM. I see that EricR has posted further details. Also as an act of good faith can you reinstate the other two articles so I can do a couple of hours work on them - and then you can judge them. regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Do you have a hard copy? Perhaps you can provide a scan of it. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Astrotrain == |
|||
You left a comment at User:Astrotrain's Talk page saying "you are supposed to let the originator of the article know first". I am not sure that that is really the case. For example whenever I nominate an AFD I usually assume that the original author (and subsequent editors) have "Watch"ed the page. Of course, as a courtesy, you ''could'' go round notifying people. Some may consider this politeness, but others consider it to be [[spamming]]! Either way, it should remain a voluntary practice, not an obligation. --[[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Mais, I am sure I read that you should let the originator know in the AfD policy page.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I defer to your greater knowledge!! I rarely read these things :) Often, in real life, as well as at Wikipedia, ''common sense'' should be our guide, not bloody rulebooks. It is often very useful to ask oneself: "what is ''reasonable''"? I, personally, consider it reasonable to choose ''not'' to invest one's time in notifying people of AFDs. --[[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Martin McGartland]] at AfD== |
|||
Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, [[Martin McGartland]], at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland]]. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --[[User:Eastmain|Eastmain]] 23:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) <!-- Template:Adwnote --> |
|||
==NPA== |
|||
I warned you once about personal attacks. Don't make any more, or you will be blocked. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Which personal attack?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::At [[WP:ANI]]. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I dont know if you know just have it in for me because we disagreed over the Montgomery article but I was raising a serious issue - Asrotion has taken to mass deletion of my work all at once how am I supposed to defend them all at once? I feel like I am being bullied here.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't have it in for you. I just think your understanding of BLP and reliable sources is wrong. If you look at my contributions, you'll see I've been issuing NPA warnings to several people today. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Cool, I just think that Astrotrain has been pretty crafty today, he knows if he puts things up for deletion all at the one time then there is less time to defend - it only takes seconds to nominate for AfD but it takes a good while to extand and defend articles.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Is that why you've just done the same thing to me Vintage??[[User:Weggie|Weggie]] 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I proddy a couple of people who are glorified local councillors - Astrotrain has nominated over 20 just today!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
If something is a good article about an appropriate subject, properly written and set out, and soundly referenced, then it will speak for itself and the community will decide to keep it. If it's not all those things, then get your act together.... [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 09:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Apology== |
|||
No, this isn't one, but you will get one if I turn out to have been mistaken. I'm a reasonable chap, or so I like to think. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:For your information, I've requested that [[:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegold]] be reopened. Cheers, [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I think you've rumbled me!<!-- not -->--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 12:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Exactly what it says: no, they won't check. You can ask Mr Gordon why, if you like, but I doubt you'll get an answer. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Why wouldnt they check? I wont them to (looking forward to see you groveling!!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, there's nobody going to see it where you left it. Try [[User talk:Jpgordon]], but based on past "please disprove I'm a sockpuppet" attempts you've got two chances: fat and slim. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What reason could they have for not lookinh into the case?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Why did they knock me back? They may believe you are innocent as the driven snow. Or they may think I'm fishing. They might think there isn't enough evidence. They could think that evading a block is not a big enough deal to justify the effort and the invasion of privacy. If you meant why did they ignore your request, first off they never do checkusers for the subject and secondly someone had aleady taken it off the list when you left your message so they wouldn't have seen it. You may be in line for that apology all the same: Bluegold never posted when he'd been on the drink that I remember. Cheers, [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 01:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Martin McGartland]]== |
|||
Thanks. I recommend not creating stubs, but bringing articles up to this standard, so they become AfD-proof. They need to be tightly referenced. Please note how the info is presented in the references. Don't worry if stubs (or other articles) get deleted. You can recreate them, provided you create an article which is ''substantially different'' to the deleted one — i.e. with extra material not present in the first version. Never recreate an identical version however. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==References== |
|||
The sources you are using, particularly (but not limited to) Relatives for Justice and Republican News are not neutral or independant, please read [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. [[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 12:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Gerald Donaghy]]== |
|||
Thanks for your advice. I think it's pretty obvious his name was Gerard, not Gerald; the [[BBC]], among other sources confirm this. |
|||
As far as using the "move (move page)" option, I have never done so, and I guess I am a little nervous about trying something new for fear of losing all the data if I screw up, but I'll try it the next time I have to redirect something. |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
P.S. After reading [[User:Stubacca]]'s comments just above I must say that I agree with him.[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Well if you dont know how to use thing just ask, people as usually willing to help. As for the name change, there is a discussion on the page - you are more than welcome to join in. regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Bastin8== |
|||
That felas a dope.He really was getting me wroked up.Althoguh he was probably taking the piss. [[User:Dermo69|Dermo69]] 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I hear ya a chara, just remember [[WP:CIVIL]] and dont get yourself banned! I am also having trouble with some editors with a similar viewpoint to Bastin--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:PUI]] == |
|||
Your comments on [[WP:PUI]] were unwarranted. It is hardly useful for this project to attack users who try to ensure compliance with copyright law and Wikipedia policy. —[[User:xyzzy_n|xyzzy]]<sub>[[User talk:xyzzy_n|n]]</sub> 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
For issues with the conduct of another user, try [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. However, I’m fairly certain that the PUI entries were justified. The images really don’t quite meet the requirements. —[[User:xyzzy_n|xyzzy]]<sub>[[User talk:xyzzy_n|n]]</sub> 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Using a non-free image of a poster for illustration of an article about a person is like copying an entire newspaper article because it happens to discuss the same person as a Wikipedia article. Basically unless you can track down the copyright holder and get an image under a free licence or prove that the image is legally usable for some other reason, you’re out of luck—even if other websites use images of the poster with somewhat less consideration of copyright issues. (Non-free images of posters are usable under [[Wikipedia:fair use|fair use]] e. g. when the poster itself is notable or if the poster is an important example of an art form.) —[[User:xyzzy_n|xyzzy]]<sub>[[User talk:xyzzy_n|n]]</sub> 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks for the advice mate, I appriciate it--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Terrorism Categorys== |
|||
You have recently removed categorys on articles about terrorism in the United Kingdom. You state in the edit summary that it is a [[POV]]. But I can not see how it is a [[POV]] that these incidents were not terrorism. If it is not terrorism then what would you call these incidents? I am keen to resolve this issue to stop a [[Wikipedia:Edit war|Edit war]]. --[[User:Benjaminevans82|Benjaminevans82]] 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:1. Define terrorism. 2. Have you read wiki policy on the use of the term terrorism?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
About the same issue with regards the [[Shankill Road bombing]] and the [[Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings]]. I did reply to you on the Shankill Road bombing talk page, see there for my objections to your changes to that article. With regards to the Hyde & Regents Park attacks, they are a seperate incident and should be discussed seperately at that article's talk page. With regards to your edits of IRA attacks within the United Kingdom, your attitude is woefully short on wikiettiquette and consideration for NPOV. You are repeatedly pushing the idea that the IRA are not a terrorist organisation. As stated on Wikipedia' own article on [[List of terrorist organisations]], the Provisional Irish Republican Army was listed, at the times the articles in question are referring to, as a terrorist organisation by almost the entire English-speaking world, including the UK, Ireland and the United States. |
|||
The articles you have been editing are not simply attacks on an "occupying force" of the British Army, but have included a [[Shankill Road bombing|civilian fish shop]], a [[La Mon Restaurant bombing|civilian hotel]] and two off-duty military units in England, which attacks caused respectively [[1972 Aldershot bombing|seven civilian deaths]] and [[Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings|dozens of civilian injuries]]. The UN depiction of terrorism, with my own emphasis on aspects which make the IRA a terrorist organisation, is below taken from the [[Definition of terrorism]] article: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
Terrorism is an '''anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action''', employed by '''(semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors''', for idiosyncratic, criminal or '''political reasons''', whereby — in contrast to assassination — '''the direct targets of violence are not the main targets'''. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and '''serve as message generators'''. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are '''used to manipulate the main target (audience(s))''', turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988). |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
By this standard, all the acts you have repeatedly edited are unequivocally by definition of the UN, terrorist. |
|||
Finally, your own attitude does not reflect the ethos and environment in which Wikipedia should be worked upon. You have relentlessly criticised, insulted and degraded those that disagree with you, have made little effort to discuss changes with other editors and repeatedly changed articles in a manner you know to be in bad faith. You have done this despite repeated warnings and cautions from many different users over a protracted period of time. Please stop this. In future please discuss any controversial changes on an articles talk page '''before''' making them. If you do this rationally, then a compromise can be reached which stops endless and fruitless edit wars and conflicts, which only harm Wikipedia as a whole. Thankyou--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::You are very close to breaking [[WP:CIVIL]]--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Anyway we have [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attacks_on_the_London_Underground been through this all before]--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Stop removing these categories: NPOV policy states that "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views." not removing views with which one disagrees: these are designated terrorist offences in UK law. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 10:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Close but no cigar. If I have offended you then I apologise and in any case I am withdraw from his debate, I don't have time to fight with you over every article about the IRA and will leave the issue for future editors to clear up. Just to note, the discussion you linked to and the Wikipedia guidelines indicate that the use of the word terrorism should be sourced. I agree with this totally. However, you have been removing the '''categories''' linking to terrorism. This is deliberately disingenuous as a category cannot be sourced no matter how well referenced the article is. Anyway, goodbye, I have already been drawn to far into this and would rather be working on articles, not debating semantics, so I'll leave you to it.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 10:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::If you notice I havent removed the category from each article only those in which civilians were not the specific target.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 12:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== SPG == |
|||
Thanks for the comments. |
|||
All I had prior to searching the web was the quotes from McCaughey in Bandit country. However, just searching the web this afternoon for stuff on collusion, there's stuff that would actually make your eyes pop out. Read this http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html and this http://www.nd.edu/~cchr/publications/IIP_final_11_06_06.pdf. Absolutely shocking. Allegations that the RUC, UDR and British Army were all involved to one degree or another in sectarian killings. Really disturbing stuff. |
|||
Also on a less serious note, I may have made a mistake about the nature of the SPG, it seems it was a counter terrorist division of the RUC, with a number of different units, rather than being just one unit based in Armagh. I'm going to have to look up a book or two to sort this out. |
|||
[[User:Jdorney|Jdorney]] 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Background== |
|||
In response to your inquiry: |
|||
I am neither Guatemalan nor Puerto Rican. |
|||
Btw--your spelling is atrocious. Does this mean you were not educated by the [[Irish Christian Brothers]]?? |
|||
Slainte. |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah I was educated by ICB but never listened, I know my spelling is terrible, I should use a spell check more!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 03:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I knew you were educated by the ICB anyway given your Fenianism. |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Anglo-Irish War]]== |
|||
This is the correct terminology, the other ([[Irish War of Independence]]) is emotive, manipulative and POV, for example the American Revolutionary War is never called the "American War of Independence". |
|||
P.S. I haven't read your last message yet (the "new messages" sign just arrived in (lol) orange) but if it's to whinge about my reference to your Fenianism, forget it, bub. If you can call people "idiots" and "West Britons" (as per [[:User:Demiurge]]) then you have lost the right to squeal about [[WP:CIVIL]]. |
|||
Slainte. |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I didnt mention you calling me a fenian (which if I was in a more sensitive mood could have called a personal attack!!). Anyway, [[Tan War]] and [[Anglo-Irish War]] are both redirects to the correct page which is [[Irish War of Independence]], so how can that be, as you say, "emotive, manipulative and POV" - if anything that shows me that you possibly do not really have an indepth knowledge on the subject, and that to you calling the PIRA "terrorist's" and this shows you potentially biased POV.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
You have just admitted that the use of the term "Volunteer" (as applied to the IRA) is "in mediation" - therefore you have no right to use it or at least I have the right to change it, and I will. |
|||
'''You''' are the one who made the redirect in question, which I told you I am going to let slide, although I could easily reverse it. Don't push your luck, bud. |
|||
And btw, I have plenty of in depth knowledge of this subject matter as you must realize by now, but since that (your accusing people of lacking knowledge of something that they disagree with you about) has become a boilerplate response on your part I am not even going there. |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Everything you said there is incorrect. |
|||
*What is in mediation is whether or not "member" or "Volunteer" should be used, in the mean time both can be used but should not be substituted for each other. Did you read the links I provided? |
|||
::''...in the mean time both can be used but should not be substituted for each other.'' -proof please [[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Anglo-Irish War]] has been a redirect to [[Irish War of Independence]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Irish_War&action=history since March 2006, see here], what you have mistake is my additional redirect of [[Anglo Irish War]] which I made for additional clarification. An apology for that would be nice. I will ask you again, [[Tan War]] and [[Anglo-Irish War]] are both redirects to the correct page which is [[Irish War of Independence]], so how can that be, as you say, "emotive, manipulative and POV"--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I will have to relook at the issue of the redirects and make appropriate corrections. Thanks for the update.[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Harrod's Bombing== |
|||
I am happy to explain - you conveniently removed all references to civilian casualties (one of whom was an American citizen, although I can understand if you didn't know that) and that and the issue of not having time to defuse the bomb constituted most of the change '''back''' overriding your prior rv. |
|||
Slainte. |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, this just goes to show that you didnt even read what you were reverting. Please read what you reverted and then come back and apologies.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Volunteer/Member== |
|||
Why would I make a necessary correction just to revert my own work? If you want to report me about something which is already in mediation and give momentum for a final ruling, fine. Anyone who reviews your talk page and most of your edits will come to the same (sane) conclusion as I have -- you are inserting a republican slant to almost everything you touch. |
|||
P.S. - give up the notion of ever getting an apology out of me. You are wasting your time, bud. |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Paddy Quinn (Irish republican)]]== |
|||
As far as the changes go: |
|||
*a) You can indicate your feelings - you do not tell me what to do |
|||
*b) You inserted Oglaich as part of his name in Gaelic when you know full well that is not the case and what that word means. |
|||
*c) I readded the Northern Irish Roman Catholics category because as you yourself argued earlier once someone is born and raised Catholic, unless they officially leave the Church, they are Catholic, and I agree with you on that (hard to believe, huh) |
|||
*d) The fact that his mother who introduced him to republicanism (as it states on the page and which you never removed) was also the one who got him off the strike (and I read all about it and can quote the "epileptic fits" part) is exceedingly notable. |
|||
*e) The fact that other families did the same following her example is also quite noteworthy. |
|||
What problems with the above do you have? |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 06:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#I do not tell you what to do but when you edit on wiki it is expected that you should abide by there rules, policies and procedures.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 06:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#Óglach is the Irish version of Volunteer which was his title within the PIRA that is why it has been added. |
|||
#Have you got a link to state that he is a Catholic? |
|||
#Have you got a link to state that your ascertion about his mother and his health? I have no problem with you adding it, and I am sure it probably happened as he was on hunger strike for over a month, but the issues is that you must add references to back the statement up.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 15:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
# |
|||
#::That was not a part of his name at birth in any language, and the issue of Volunteer is unsettled; your continuing to use it (in a foreign language) shows your continuing disregard for all Wikipedia rules and regulations that you don't personally like or agree with |
|||
# |
|||
# |
|||
.[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Paddy Quinn (redux)== |
|||
I am getting sick and tired of your refusal to answer directly a question posed to you rather than using some nonsense like implying that your opponent does not "abide by the rules" or is "breaking with consensus" or "POV", which you yourself do too much of, but overuse the word way too much as an accusation against others -- these are not answers, these are braindead soundbites which you employ when you cannot answer something or know you are wrong. |
|||
Thus I am no longer going to respond to any questions re Paddy Quinn when I have already provided the answers (see above). |
|||
:I do not understand you aggressive attitude, you are very close to breaking [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]]--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 13:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
My attitude is due to the fact that you are a wanna-be censor/revisionist. |
|||
==Tom Begley== |
|||
The claim that he was fervently anti-sectarian is POV and unsubstantiated (unsubstantiatable) [[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC). |
|||
::The following was retrieved from your discussion page: ''Firstly the article did not state he was "fervently anti-sectarian" is state he believed in non sectarian republicanism - a. can you explain what you consider is POV about that and b. it is reference in Tirghrá within his biography.''--Vintagekits 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It is POV to project or imply an outlook or political vision ("non sectarian republicanism") to another person for which there is no '''objective substantiation''', only another one of your boilerplate pro-IRA news outlets (in this case Tirghrá), which is what you rely on most of the time.[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 14:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The Glenbryn Estate incidents had nothing to do with Begley, but '''merely coincided with the date of his death''' -- there is no connection as far as I know, nor have you provided any such connection. |
|||
::As far as the "illiterate" goes, I know I read it, but for now I cannot source it so I cannot stop you from removing it for now. It appears I will have to wade into the ''An Poblacht'' archives -- what a horrific prospect. |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Harrod's Bombing== |
|||
*Q: As the target of the attack you stated "Christmas shoppers at Harrods" - can you clarify this answer and the store and not the shoppers was the target and this is confirmed by the prior phoned warning to evacuate. |
|||
*A: I did not insert that, although the IRA obviously knew that there was a strong possibility of civilian casualties, and given your undoubted links to the IRA, you know it as well. |
|||
*Q: You deleted the time of the explosion and replaced it with "Unfortunately they did not have time to defuse it" - a. why do you delete the time and b. "Unfortunately" may be correct but it is POV, why did you and it. |
|||
*A: "Unfortunately" '''is NOT POV'''. |
|||
:'''Not every adjective or adverb is prohibited from being used on Wikipedia. There is a clear universality that it was unfortunate that the bomb could not be defused, except by die-hard [[PIRA]] supporters, which I suppose includes ...''' - guess who. So "Unfortunately" is fine, unless you can provide an impartial third party to confirm otherwise. |
|||
*Q: You previously added the line "Three officers and three civilians (including one citizen of the United States) were killed." but then deleted from my last edit, can you please explain this. |
|||
*A: I don't remember offhand whatever I removed but I am sure if you wrote it it deserved to be removed. |
|||
*Q: you removed the line "It stated that a bomb was placed the C&A deptartment store on the east side of Oxford Street, London." and replaced it with "They claimed a bomb had been placed in the heart of Oxford Street. It was said to be at the C&A store on the east side of the shopping street." the later sounds messy and POV can you explain the edit. |
|||
*A: I did not make that change to the best of my knowledge; it doesn't sound like anything I would have done; pls. check the edit history to confirm who made that particular change. |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::You did make those changes, please check you edit, I would not send you a messege about it if you hadnt, regards.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Harrassment== |
|||
Harrassment is not going to get me to do anything for you. And considering the mood I'm in right now, you do NOT want to cross me right now. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 07:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I really do not understand your aggresive attitude towards me. I simply asked you if there was any update with the issue. You asked me for certain links which I provided you but since then I havent heard anything, what do you suggest I do? Why/how can you consider this harrassment?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 07:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It's not harrassment: you are being responsible. However, Zoe is under pressure at the moment and rather sensitive to things, so the best thing is to back off from her. I would wait a few days, and '''if''' you have sound sources, then you can start the article again with them, and explain exactly what you are doing in the edit summary and on the talk page - and why the situation is now different. However, I suggest you are very careful in how you write such an article and cautious in the statements you write. It would be best to say something like, "The Daily Mail said..." and put in a quote. You are welcome to link to this post on the article talk page. You might also want to liaise with another editor to review the article to make sure that it conforms to [[WP:BLP]]. However, if you can [[WP:V|verify]] with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] then it is legitimate. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 13:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]]== |
|||
I see you thought I was a sock-puppet! Ha! The problem with Sir Walter Palmer's article was that I created it as "Walter Palmer" and Kittybrewster moved it to "Sir Walter...", therefore the article, as it stands was created by him, whereas de facto it was I who established it.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 14:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:That is fine, it was just that you said you started the page but there was no mention of you in the history. regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Diarmuid O'Neill]]== |
|||
*I have no evidence that he was ever legally named "Dermot". |
|||
*I have seen no evidence he was shot in his bed, only that he was dragged down the stairs. |
|||
*The use of the word Volunteer as far as I know is still being mediated, if otherwise, please provide me with a link to any conclusion supporting your claims. [[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 14:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Joseph MacManus]]== |
|||
* For your edification - for categorizing purposes all people whose surnames start with Mc or Mac must be categorized as Mac... (see the instruction left on [[Martin McGuinness]]' edit page from a Wikipedia editor as an example if you wish); it goes as follows: |
|||
''Please use Macguiness, ie with an 'a' and a lowercase 'g', to assist category sorting'' |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Nicknames== |
|||
* When dealing with the issue of nicknames "Joe", "Tom", it is a matter of personal preference how to do so, e.g. |
|||
:: Joseph Thomas Murphy, also known as Joe Murphy |
|||
or |
|||
:: Joseph Thomas "Tom" Murphy |
|||
or |
|||
:: Joseph Thomas ("Tom") Murphy |
|||
There are no rules prohibiting any of the above and all are correct grammatically.[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Spelling at AN/I == |
|||
In order to help your case, please consider running your post through spell check. You do, as you already suspect, have some troubling errors. for one: Accusation, not acquisation. second, barrage of, not barge on. Please fix these as to make your posting more readable, and consider constructing longer posts of a serious nature like this in Word or another text editor with spell check first. I note this in order to help you, not to pick on you. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:your right, thanks!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::'''You're'''![[User:Vintagekits]] |
|||
:::Lol!!!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Banned== |
|||
You are banned from leaving any sort of message for me whatsoever. Not only do you write as though you are an illiterate, you have nothing I am interested in hearing. |
|||
I am going to recommend to the Administrators that you be blocked again for a lengthy period of time, and I am also going to recommend that all 8 IRA terrorists killed at Loughall be redirected to [[Loughgall]] as they do not merit their own pages, which are almost identical, anyway. |
|||
You banned [[:User:Logica]] and [[:User:Logoistic]] from your discussion page; you are banned forever from mine. |
|||
[[User:New identity|New identity]] 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[[:User:Logica]] and [[:User:Logoistic]] are both the same person, he is not banned from discussing topics with me. When he was a newbie he would leave numberous warnings on my page without knowing what they meant. Infact there are messege on my talk page from him, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vintagekits#Our_relationship here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vintagekits#lost_virginity here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vintagekits#Sockpuppet_claim here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vintagekits#Sock_accounts here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vintagekits#I_just_noticed_this here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vintagekits#Edit_conflict here]. You are being massively uncivil and breaching many policies, please stop.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: "Without knowing what they meant": I know exactly what they meant, and still stand by them! I'm assuming good faith in letting past issues I have with Vintagekits go (more understandable given his block), but that doesn't mean policy breaking past or present will be tolerated. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Again, do not contact me on my talk/discussion page -- you are creating a stressful situation for me. If I have a problem with you I will have to go through an Administrator; I see that the threat of being blocked is the only thing you respect.[[User:New identity|New identity]] 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Book== |
|||
Don't have that Andy McNab book. Can probably get a hold of it, for a look though. What is it in it that you are looking for? |
|||
[[User:Jdorney|Jdorney]] 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
OK, what's the name of that book. I'll see what I can do. |
|||
[[User:Jdorney|Jdorney]] 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Re: McCormack and Davison== |
|||
Due to an altogether separate conflict, I wouldn't add this to Zoe's plate right now or expect any responses from her. If you think there is geniunely a lot more to say about this men that is really worth including in Wikipedia, then you can create new articles on them. Please be mindful of sticking to reliable sources and citing what you include in the article. Once a fully sourced article is created, you could try to get the history undeleted at [[WP:DRV]]; however, the BLP concerns about those versions may prevent that from happening. It is of course up to you to establish the notability of the men should that be challenged at AFD. Best of luck, [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:What do you need to contact anyone for re. the above? The objection was to lack of valid references. If these exist then there is no objection under [[WP:BLP]] to the article. You may want to make a note of the changed ref. of the conversation on AN/I, in case you need to cite it. If you do start the article again, you'll need to explain change circumstances in edit summary/talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive186#Robert_McCartney_.28murder_victim.29]. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[WP:NPA]]== |
|||
Re. your request I have left a note for [[User:New identity|New identity]] that personal attacks must stop. Regardless of any other problems, that is not acceptable. Feel free to notify me with diffs if there is a recurrence, but I trust not. Re. the other issues, I'm afraid someone else will have to deal with those. However, please have a look at [[WP:DR]]. It can be a very good idea to back off if things get stressful. Wiki will still be here in a year. We're writing for the long term, not just next week. Also if there is a sound point, you can rely on the fact that someone else will also turn up to make it. It's not all down to you. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:PS build up your case in an article with cast iron verifiable references. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 03:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland]]== |
|||
you clearly have an interest in topics such as this. I draw your attention to it. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Changing member to Volunteer == |
|||
That was about the only time that you '''could''' have done that within the rules! [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== "Regular" Irish Army == |
|||
Vintage, "regular" implies that there is an "irregular". I worry that people will think the Irish Army is linked with the PIRA. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually it is a historical term, the IRA were called the "irregulars", seriously.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Talk page== |
|||
If you have a message for [[User:Astrotrain]] could you please leave it on his Talk Page. My Talk Page contained a message from him to me - only. It is not a debating page. [[User:David Lauder|David Lauder]] 09:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I was not debating, he made a claim about me there which was false so I cleared the issue up there so anyone who saw it could see the actual facts and know that it was false.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 10:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, I have moved your message to his talk page and told him you left it on mine. [[User:David Lauder|David Lauder]] 10:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::No problem, as long as you have seen that he fabricates.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 10:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Please see my comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Lauder#IRA_terrorist_suspects here]. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== At least get this checked out to clear your name == |
|||
Vintage, [[User:Our Day Will Come]] at first appears to be a sockpuppet of yourself, judging by their edit history. However, this seems too obvious - you would have realised people would have caught onto you right away if you did that. So I'm going to put in a case for checkuser - I'll post the link when I do so - to confirm this. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I did say all that on the DO'N AfD page. I am 1. happy for him to be checked and 2. Think he should be reinstated until there is proof he is a sock.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Here's the link[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Pending#Outstanding_requests|here]. Don't be stupid about him being reinstated. It was clearly aimed at making you look as if you had a sock. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It was tongue in cheek--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I would think about maybe trying to get a checkuser on recent users who may have had disagreements with you (not me, although you can try it if you want to be sure!). [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am sure some of them are socks - proving it is a different matter! I think we actually have a decent relationship these days, based on mutual opposition.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well you know [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/36994.html|here what they say]! [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
=="Christmas shoppers"== |
|||
You may find this relevant.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benjaminevans82#Harrods_bombing] I will back up any removal of unsubstantiated material. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Random Smiley Award == |
|||
<div STYLE="clear:right; float:right; width:300px; background-color:#f9f0C9; border: 1px solid #888850; padding:2px;">[[image:smiley.svg|left|90px|]]<small>For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted <B>[[User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward|Random Smiley Award]]</b><BR>originated by [[User:Pedia-I|<font color="darkblue" size="-1" face="Constantia">Pedia-I</font>]] <BR>([[User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward|Explanation and Disclaimer]])</DIV> |
|||
--[[User:TomasBat|TomasBat]] <small>(''[[User_talk:TomasBat|Talk]]'')</small> 02:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I wasnt expectin that! --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 09:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Block-Log on User:Kittybrewster == |
|||
Have you heard about the block-log to [[User:kittybrewster]] from [[User:Mr. Darcy]] because, apparently, a personal attack towards you by reffering to you in an unnapropiate way? --[[User:TomasBat|TomasBat]] <small>(''[[User_talk:TomasBat|Talk]]'')</small> 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Fair use rationale for Image:Kelly g.jpg== |
|||
Thanks for uploading '''[[:Image:Kelly g.jpg]]'''. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. |
|||
Please go to [[:Image:Kelly g.jpg|the image description page]] and edit it to include a fair use rationale. |
|||
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you. |
|||
This is an automated notice by [[User:OrphanBot|OrphanBot]]. For assistance on the image use policy, see [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]. 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Citations== |
|||
It would help your case greatly if you made citations in the recommended way. Compare "Notes and references" in [[Martin McGartland]] (apart from a couple I didn't do) with [[Charles Breslin]]. In the former it is easy for an editor (or a reader) to see the quality of the references to BBC, Hansard etc, as they are visible. In the latter article only a title is visible with no indication of the source. You can either do the cites by hand, as I have done, or you might find it easier to use the appropriate template on [[Wikipedia:Citation templates]]. See also [[WP:CITE]]. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:cheers, will do.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== ONH == |
|||
Thanks for making the references nice & clear. I haven't gotten the hang of that yet! I wonder; do you think that [[Óglaigh na hÉireann (2006)]] would be a fair compromise between length and specificity for the CIRA splinter group? I'd also appreciate your input at [[Template talk:IRAs]], if you have the time. [[Image:Erin Go Bragh flag.jpg|20 px]]<b>[[User:Johnathan_Swift|<span style="color:#006600">Erin Go Bragh</span>]]</b> 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Reference deletion== |
|||
Replied [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stubacca#Reference_deletion here]. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== I.R.A. WikiProject? == |
|||
Hi all, I'm rather new to the Wiki (just joined up a few days ago), but the whole WikiProject concept seems like an effective tool for gathering a group of people together to work on a specific subject. I'm primarily interested in contributing to areas related to [[Irish nationalism]], and the [[Irish Republican Army]], and I've noticed a few of you have quite a lot of involvement in the same area. So, I wonder if anyone would be interested in forming a WikiProject focusing on Irish Nationalism? [[Wikipeda:WikiProject Irish Republican Army]] seems like a good title to me! [[WP:WPIRA]] would be a great shortcut! I'm posting this up on many different pages, so I would especially appreciate it if, if you're interested, you would join me at [[User talk:Johnathan Swift#WikiProject IRA]]. [[Image:Erin Go Bragh flag.jpg|20 px]]<b>[[User:Johnathan_Swift|<span style="color:#006600">Erin Go Bragh</span>]]</b> 06:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Can you explain this? == |
|||
Vintage, why did you change "member" to "Volunteer" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Lynagh&diff=105402526&oldid=105391558 here]? [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Have a look at the history and you will find out. You are going to have to dig deeper if you are search for things to try and "get me in trouble" for.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm giving you the opportunity to explain what appears to be a blatant change from "member" to "Volunteer". If "getting you into trouble" means upholding mediation, then that's definantly true. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have told you the answer.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If you have a legitimate reason to do this, please highlight it in your edit summary. You can't expect people to wade through the history of edits, Vintage. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It would be helpful to provide a fuller answer. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Sometimes it is hard to be really helpful to people who you feel are harassing you. Weggie made an edit earlier in mediation believing mediation was closed, however, as you can see mediation is still ongoing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Lynagh&diff=96646141&oldid=96413773 Here] is the edit Weggie made.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Ok, so (1) why didn't you mention this in your edit summary, and (2) why didn't you indicate this right away as I asked. You realise this is a contentious issue, and it doesn't help when you make legitimate reverts that go back so far that it looks like blatent mediation-breaking. Please be more helpful in future. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Because you have accused me for this before without looking at the edit history.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShyam_Bihari&diff=105457534&oldid=105457272 Stressed] == |
|||
I know what you mean!!!!! [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:You shouldnt have started this tonight with one day to go. Just to get him to reconsider PLEASE self revert at tell him that because you take this SO serious you are prepared to do this. This is not admitting you are wrong this is a jesture - whatever the real word will be there in 48 hours--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Ok, I will. But I still stand by the point, and will expect him to look at it. The case should never have been closed. If anything, Shyam should have responded to my initial posting about you creating that article. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Advice=== |
|||
The mediator has made his position clear. If the differing parties agree to co-operate with me, I will look at the issue afresh. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 01:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: I do, but presumably you'll need to message all of the other involved parties? [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 01:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I think I would rather sack wiki off altogether rather than go through this again. Shyam is reconsidering opening the case again, so lets see if he does, this is not a relaxing experience. T, can you please have a word with him and ask him to open it as there is only one day left of the cabal after 3 months of arguing.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would assume that we would keep what we've already got there. I am seeing it as a transfer from one mediator to another rather than competely reopening it. It would be pointless to disregard all the progress that's been made on it. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 13:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Just out of interest... == |
|||
[http://politicalcompass.org/questionnaire Where do you stand?] [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Did it before - |
|||
:Economic Left/Right: -2.16 |
|||
:Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.00 |
|||
==Refs== |
|||
In case there's anything useful here - a template I've just devised! |
|||
To post to another user: |
|||
<nowiki>{{subst:Refstart}}</nowiki> |
|||
It signs automatically. |
|||
[[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 11:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Template from Template:Refstart --> |
|||
{| class="navbox collapsible " style="text-align: center; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Glad to see some one <s>has</s> had the '''ability''' and '''tenacity''' to defend NPOV against the imposition of POV-by-numbers <span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]])</span> 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
! style="background-color: #f90;" | <big>Using references (citations)</big> |
|||
| |
|} |
||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" style="text-align: left;" | |
|||
Jeez Vk; you break my heart! Why keep effin' and blinding at people when you '''know''' what will happen????? Still, hope you get back. Maybe look up ''"apology"'' in the dictionary and practice in front of a mirror - without head-butting the glass :) [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I noticed you've been editing and not using references (refs). These are important to [[WP:V|validate]] your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add information, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where the it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. |
|||
:Hmmmm.....Maybe '''I''' should be apologising: it seems you were merely ''explaining'' the phrase "cop yourself on" when an Admin interpreted that as a personal attack. Bad call. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 10:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=== Simple referencing === |
|||
::Is the Barnstar something I should NOT wish to have on my name? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.164.222.233|85.164.222.233]] ([[User talk:85.164.222.233|talk]]) 23:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code: |
|||
== Not banned yet == |
|||
:<nowiki>==Notes and references==</nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki><references/></nowiki> |
|||
The debate about blocking or banning is still ongoing at ANI, as such VK should be permitted to edit his talk page. Everyone has a right to defend themselves before a sentence is passed. There seems to be a lot of unssemly and undue haste on this matter - why? <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Green;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and ''after'' punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap): |
|||
:I have to say this looks like a witch hunt. As I look at it, it is beginning to stink. A discussion about a possible ban was opened... a dozen or so people voted straight away to say ban... and then people tried to close the discusion AFTER AN HOUR and impose a ban. Sounds like some canvassing was going on there and some people letting their hurt feelings over rule their reasonable side. Having had a look into this yes VK has some WP:Civil issues but really... complete ban after an hour's discussion? I have to say I think a number of editors should step away from this issue completely. --[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] ([[User talk:LiamE|talk]]) 10:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki><ref> </ref></nowiki> |
|||
In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point: |
|||
<blockquote>"To RLevse: ''The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say.'' |
|||
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference. |
|||
''Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page.'' |
|||
=== Test it out === |
|||
''You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.''! From Vintagekits</blockquote> |
|||
Copy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page: |
|||
Posted here by <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Green;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki>==Reference test==</nowiki> |
|||
:I'd support that. I'm of the view that Vk was by no means the only person sending emails last night. And the initial block was so bad it merited a severe reaction. IMHO. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:This is the text which you are going to reference.<nowiki><ref></nowiki> ''Substitute your own text in this space'' <nowiki></ref></nowiki> |
|||
:Show me the diff that justifies preventing this user from any sort of communication. I don't see it. When people get blocked we expect them to get heated and do a little cussing on their own talk page. Escalating at that point is harmful to Wikipedia. Just let them blow of steam and if they are still in the mood to cause trouble after 48 hours, reblock them. If you think the user has warn out community patience, you need to give the community a chance to comment. One hour of discussion is not enough. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki>==Notes and references==</nowiki> |
|||
::If you do adjust the block, and consensus seems to be against the idea, please do not re-enable e-mails. I don't appreciate e-mails of the type I was sent last night, I don't need to hear how disgusted VK is with me or any of his other opinions on me. There is always the unblock mailing list, or arbcom to e-mail. E-mailing other Wikipedians has already been abused. [[User talk:Chillum|<small><sup><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.2em 0.3em; class=texhtml; color:#C53F17">'''Chillum'''</span></sup></small>]] 15:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki><references/></nowiki> |
|||
:::Have we had a chance to look at this infamous email yet or do we have to just take you word on it that it was as bad as you have been making out? --[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] ([[User talk:LiamE|talk]]) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
(End of text to copy and paste.) |
|||
*Chillum, you have email enabled so you can receive emails - was the email abusive or was it not, perhaps you are "''confused''" - again? In fact, I think I will seek VK's permission to post it here, then we all may judge. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Green;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*Wow, the choke hold is off! I would like to know why I was banned from my talkpage in the first place. If my talk page wasnt banned then no one would have received any emails - as it was my only outlet of communication at a time that editors were discussing my very "wiki-life" what was I supposed to do. |
|||
:Even though it was late and I was tired and should have been in my nest, I dont think I sent anything untoward, I may have expressed my disgust and disappointment the way some experienced appeared to be screwing the facts in what I considered a "witch hunt". I am happy for any editor to disclose the content of any email I sent last night to allow others deem if it was offending or not. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=== Information to include === |
|||
*SarekOfVulcan, asks if Elonka considered my comment a personal attack. Shouldnt the more pertaintant question be to Domer - i.e. if my interpretation of what he meant by "cop yourself on" was a more polite version of what I said.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this: |
|||
*I have little desire to continue explaining my actions here over and over. My removal of talk page access had nothing to do with the discussion at ANI, and pre-dated any serious discussion of a ban/indef block. I was simply trying to prevent VK from posting any more unblock requests during what was at that time only a 48 hour block. Next thing I know this is in my email inbox: |
|||
<blockquote>You obviously have never experienced bashing your head against a brick wall for months on end. I am hounded by British sympathising editors on every page I venture onto because of my support for physical forces Irish republicanism - what you Americans would now call "terrorism". |
|||
I never expect a fair shot so was not suprised by your decline - admins look at my block log and say "fuck me this guy is a monster" - however the vast majority of the blocks were bad blocks and most of the time an admin with enough balls to spot it unblocks me. |
|||
Its simple just come to an end now - I've had enough.</blockquote> |
|||
*and another: |
|||
<blockquote>its utterly contemptable and inflamatory to block someones talkpage - a talk page should not be blocked unless it is being used to abuse wikipedia, cause further breaches of policy or to out another editor. NONE OF THESE WERE BEING DONE!!! |
|||
YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO PUSH ME INTO MAKING A REAL PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU WHICH I AM ON THE VERGE OF! you are a disgrace!</blockquote> |
|||
:<nowiki><ref> Smith, Timothy: "A Guide to Planets", page 29. Solar Publishing, 2001 </ref></nowiki> |
|||
:I'm not particularly offended or appalled by these, but they are not exactly helpful or logical either. VK seems to believe he is the target of some vast British Wikipedian conspiracy. I can only speak for myself of course, but I can assure you my actions were not based in any way on his nationality or political views. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::*you are not offended because there is nothing to be offended by - he is merely explaining to you how he feels. If he feels ganged up upon and victimised, can you really be surprised after the events of last night, when while all of Europe was fast asleep a group of mostly American acted as they did in a seemingly co-ordinated fashion and at such speed. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Red;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Get real, the idea that this disruptive user feels ganged up on and victimized is a joke. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::(ec) You need to stop beating that drum. Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty, I must say I was surprised to see things progressing so quickly, but the idea that it was some deliberate "anti-European cabal conspiracy" has little to no merit. If anything it was VK who was doing the canvassing with all of his email activity. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm very much afraid you people should have considered your actions and words more carefully during the night - then things may not appear as they do. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Red;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::: "Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty" - when you can say something like that I really just shake my head and wonder how you were ever allowed be an admin. Rlvese acted acted as judge, jury and executioner last night - and all down in the record time of an hour - whilst all of other had slept, they would have awoken to find me beheaded. I find it strange that until Alsion turned up this was unanimous to ban me - but since then it is even with regards bans and opposes. I find that very strange. Either there is a mailing list or there are a lot of lemmings - maybe both. I dont know, all I know if that I have had the shitty end of the stick here. You personally havent even taken one moment to consider this from my perspective and it shows.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Howdy Vk. It's your usage of foul language, that's getting ya into these block problems. Personally, I don't mind the colorful words, but it appears an increasing numbers of editors do. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I know i have a potty mouth - it doesnt bother me to be honest its not turned on to insult people its just the way I talk. I supposes it could be a cultural thing.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::If the community chooses 'not' to ban you, I'd recommend no more foul words. Afterall, once the Wiki community tells an editor he/she is out? he/she is out. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Perhaps somebody could write a Javascript filter that would clean up your posts. Watch out for the [[seven dirty words]]. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I hear you GD, and thank you for all your support and advice in the past. It is genuinely much appriciated.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::No prob, Vk. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::PS: I've voted '''oppose''' on the Wiki ban proposal, as you haven't vandalized any articles. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
An online newspaper source would be: |
|||
:::::My personal motto at Wikipedia is "go with the flow". Right, GoodDay?--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::PS, I also voted '''oppose'''.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yep. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Howdy Vk. I decided to delete my 'vote' from your Ban case. I shall have to take a neutral stand on it. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki><ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref></nowiki> |
|||
:I saw! I have to say that I am a little disspointed that you did that. Answer me this what made you change it? When in the last year have I vandalised a page or caused so much disruption that it woul dwarrant an indefinate ban?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 10:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::I had to revert to 'neutral', when I was reminded of your past sock-puppetry. Which (I'm glad) you haven't committed for over a year, since your last Banning case. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I have to say that certain people have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over VK's emails. They frankly look like reasonable responses given his limitations on communication at the time. I have taken some time to look over some of the troubles articles and there does seem to be a systematic Britsh POV bias going on. No wow I will lay my cards on the table here... I am a Brit... but being from an Irish family I am probably more aware of and attuned to the issues at hand than most editors. Most editors seem to take the Britsh POV and are backed by what would seem to be a a number of admins all with either a British POV or American ones with a strong anti terrorism POV. Take the "British Isles" as an example. Geographically and geologically speaking the term seems fine to me - simply meaning the group of Islands the biggest of which happens to be called Great Britain. That is pretty standard terminology for any group of Islands to be refered to by the biggest. Now the term is also used in political and economic sense where its use is not so clear cut and can have overtones that are not welcome that most British editors are simply unaware of, and the term is used in this way, which can be considered an inflamatory way, throughout wikipedia. There are alternatives to the British Isles which can and should be used outside of purely geographic or geological articles yet the weight of editors on the British side surpresses this. It is no wonder to me that editors who try and redress this balance problem feel like they are beating their head against a wall sometimes because frankly they are, though I would say it is not a wall of anti Irish sentiment but one of ignorance to the issue. --[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] ([[User talk:LiamE|talk]]) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I've changed my mind (yet again). I'm once again, opposing the indef-ban, as I've no evidence of sock-puppetry (since the last Banning case). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is <nowiki>[URL Title]</nowiki> with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use a double apostrophe for the article title, and two single quote marks for the name of the paper (to generate italics). |
|||
== Official statement requested == |
|||
The date after ''The Guardian'' is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site (useful for searching the [http://www.archive.org web archive] in case the link goes dead). Wikilinks, with double square brackets, function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user [[Help:Preferences|preference settings]]. |
|||
Jehochman has asked for you to write up and post an official statement to be contributed to the ANI discussion before it's closed. Can you create one here and indicate when you are done editing and want it copied over? Thank you. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=== Citation templates === |
|||
:George, I wasnt on line much yesterday and will be away from my computer for most of today as well as I have family visiting. That issues would you like me to address.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 09:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Vintagekits, my advice is to request a full and thorough Arbcom case, so much has happened in your career here that is does need cold and calculated scrutiny - a laying bear of facts if you like. Then a few people can assess if you are of any value to the project rather than a braying bob. The strange behaviour of some very important Wikipedians yesterday in the threads concerning you has convinced me, you need to be examined only by the Arbcom. It will be unplesant for you - you have many wiki-faults, but are not alone in that - as I see it you are standing on the trapdoor with a noose around your neck, and the mob have their hands on the lever - the lever needs to he in the hands of a responsible few. That's my advice take it or leave it. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the issues which I would hope you would address are the comments and issues raised in the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block Vintagekits indefinitely]] thread. A number of editors have commented, there and in the various alternatives which flowed out of that in the major heading. |
|||
You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference]] |
|||
:Any specific ideas, comments, opinions that were raised there and statements you'd like to make. Someone's going to have to make a determination and close the various proposed community actions threads, and it's only fair if you have a chance to be heard and respond to the issues. |
|||
:I see Giano's comment above requesting an Arbcom case. That's probably premature at the moment - nobody has closed the community remedies threads, so for right now you're just indef blocked, not banned or otherwise restricted. I recommend that the community discussion be allowed to come to an end and then if you disagree then appeal any decision to Arbcom. That's purely procedural - I think Arbcom will want to wait until the community decides, so it wouldn't make sense to appeal to them before. Once there is a community decision of some sort then you should feel free to file an Arbcom appeal or ask for a case to be opened. |
|||
:If waiting 24 more hours while you have family over and are unavailable to comment here will help, I will post a request to the thread asking for no admins to close during that period, until you have a chance to respond. I believe there's no harm done to anyone by a decent wait - a week would be hard to justify, but another day (or even two) won't hurt the community or you in any way. |
|||
:[[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::George, if you could that would be great. There is a [[Ireland vs. France 2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off|big game tonight]] and they will want to be brought out for that as well. I hope to put an hour aside tomorrow to get my thoughts down. Thanks. |
|||
---- |
|||
Yep agree a full and thorough Arbcom case. To cut out the BS insist on Diff's for any and every accusation. --<span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></span> 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Lift the block== |
|||
=== Using the same reference twice or more === |
|||
Given the nature of the block and my suspicion, based on personal experience, that this is a ''tactic'' in a banning process I believe the ban should be lifted ''before'' any further proceedings. Here we have a trial in progress while the accused has already been locked away without bail - all the better to provoke him. Not the circumstances for a fair assessment of the many issues at play here. It's not as if Vk can abscond while out on bail. I think my proposal here will tease out the ''real agenda'' of the block and ban lobby. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> code: |
|||
::No, any debate about lifting the block will split any arguement in process and confuse things further, let one decision be made at a time. If he can't be mentored, and he can't have an Arbcom case then there is no point unblocking at any time. VK can post here and a hundred helpers can post where he wants things. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, I didn't ask for any "debate". I asked for the bad block to be lifted, given it's nature and context. I am still asking for the block to be lifted, first. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 13:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki><ref name=fred> DETAILS OF REF </ref></nowiki> |
|||
::::That's my advice, take it or leave it. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Mentorship == |
|||
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you only need to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again: |
|||
Would you be willing to have me, and likely some others (which will need to include people you don't care for - so to be acceptable for those who do not appreciate the effort being expended to keep you editing this project), as mentor(s)? This would run concurrent to Jehochman's suggested limiting you to sport/boxing topics and ban from Ireland/Troubles related areas. I am asking the community the same thing at ANI, and will only accept supping from the poisoned chalice if there are two positive responses. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki><ref name=fred/></nowiki> |
|||
:There doesn't seem to be much likelihood of the community accepting you being mentored, so there is little point in you agreeing/committing. Perhaps the ArbCom option above is the only venue left to determine if there is a way for you to continue to contribute. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 11:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree, but suggest leaving the mentoring option just a little longer - people do change their minds - occasionaly. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:The Mentorship option is acceptable. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would offer mentorship as part of any Arbitration decision, should a Request get to such a stage, in any event. I regret that those opposing mentorship currently appear to be too numerous for anything but a complete about face to bring about a consensus for it. I think 36 hours from my initial offer should be sufficient time to establish the communities position on it, so there is a little time yet. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. |
|||
== Completely unconnected question == |
|||
=== Example === |
|||
Is Manny Pacquiao's fight on Miguel Cotto British TV tonight, if so when ? I can't find it anywhere and the dog has eaten today's newspaper? someone watching this page is bound to know. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
You can see refs in action in the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Bowyer_%28artist%29&oldid=102432843 William Bowyer (artist).] There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is. |
|||
: [http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12183_5684216,00.html Sky Sports 1.] [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Than you Rockpocket, but I on a computer wired not to let me look at anything pleasurable (probably why it permits Wikipedia) could you have a quick look for me, I think I have a few hours yet. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: Oh. Its being shown live at 2am on [[Sky Sports 1]]: |
|||
:'' Live Big Fight Special in HD. Manny Pacquiao v Miguel Angel Cotto. All the action from the bout at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, as Pacquiao steps up a division to challenge for Cotto's WBO Welterweight title. Pacquiao's last fight was the second-round knockout of Ricky Hatton in a light-welterweight contest in May, and he can further add to his reputation as arguably the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world should he take the belt from Cotto.'' |
|||
::: As far as I can tell, it is not being shown on any free-to-air channel. So it depends whether Giano's household subsidizes Mr Murdoch or not ;) [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well actually we do, purely for the children's educational purposes you understand. In fact, it's purely for the children's educational purposes that I fiddled with the parental controls of this computer and now can't reverse them, this is the problem with passwords when you seldom spell the same word twice two days running. Thank you for that. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Block and associated discussion== |
|||
=== Next step === |
|||
I have closed the discussion at the [[WP:ANI|incident noticeboard]] regarding your block. At this time, there is a strong, albeit not unanimous, consensus that the block is to remain. You may, as normal, request that the [[WP:ARBCOM|arbitration committee]] review the matter. As I stated in my closing rationale, if you post a request for arbitration on this page, I will move it to [[WP:RFAR|requests for arbitration]] for you. |
|||
Whatever the outcome here is, I urge you to strongly consider why things have come to this point. I hope that you will do so. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book: |
|||
:Came on to post a response now. Is it too late.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::It aint too late. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well it looks like [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] has now closed the discussion.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yep, it's closed. But ya got the option of requesting a review by [[WP:RFAR]], per Sera's above instructions. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Take a peek at [[User talk:Rockpocket#Long discussion|here]], another option. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). ''Resolving Family Differences Peacefully'' (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9. |
|||
:PS: The RFAR route, is much less risky (of course). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::VK, I strongly advise you to take this whole matter to Arbitration. I repeat, your value and worth to the project needs to be formally and quietly assessed by the Arbs. If you are concerned, and I think you should be, RLevse can be asked to recuse, banning you in an hour while Europe slept was totally wrong and biased all further debate on ANI. I am unsure if you should remain or not, but I truly beleive what I said here in the now famously oversighted edit [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=325449650] <small>(outing indeed - no one was fooled by that excuse)</small>. You need and deserve a fair rational hearing, and that is probably the only way you will get one. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Pacman, WBO welterweight champion == |
|||
If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information: |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Citation templates]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Footnotes]] |
|||
Pacman TKO's Cotto in 12th rd. I was close, eh? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. |
|||
== The Third Road == |
|||
[[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 11:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
Hi Vintagekits, the two paths laid before you are both [[wikt:shithouse#Adjective|shithouse]] because both of those paths mean more unhappy work for me. |
|||
== Couple of things. == |
|||
Hi, got your note. One, you '''must''' start using edit summaries. Your failure to use them is unacceptable, and frankly it makes it look like you're trying to sneak stuff into articles. Two, I'm not going to start a wide revert war on all the articles where you and Stubacca are editing. You might consider reverting him once, and only once, on each article, with a descriptive edit summary (not just "rv"), and an accompanying note on each talk page that either explains the problem or points to one central discussion (perhaps [[Talk:Diarmud O'Neill]]?]]). I want to be clear that I'm not saying that your sources all meet [[WP:RS]], but that reverts are not the way to determine this. Talk it out with him and other users, using [[WP:RS]] as the basis for the discussion and not your respective POVs. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the advice Mr.Darcy, I will try to be more clear with the edit summaries also. cheers--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not inserting any POV into any article. I'm not sure how you're alleging that? [[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I endorse MrDarcy's statement. Vintagekits, if you want any intervention then you have got to play by the rules scrupulously. You have done very well in your communication on user talk pages, but not as yet in edit summaries and article talk pages. Please read thoroughly my posts on [[User talk:Stubacca]]. If I feel my advice is not being regarded, I'm outta here. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree, my edit summaries have not been up to stratch, possibly a case of trying to do too much at one time rather than misleading other. SInce he has said it I have tried to put a summary in all edits and will keep it up. cheers--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I strongly recommend doing one thing well rather than 20 not well. Edit summaries weren't the only thing to take note of by the way. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::If you go to your preference settings you can use an option which will remind you if you haven't left a summary. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 11:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Come over to [[Wikisource]] for a while! Bring all your friends!! ;-) |
|||
I noticed that in at least one spot, you used a [[Xanga]] page as a source - please note that blogs of any sort fail [[WP:RS]] and can't be used as sources. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 12:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Xanga isn't the only blog being used. [[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 13:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I endorse MrDarcy and have no objection to Stubacca or any other editor removing sources which are blogs which do not follow policy. A blog which would follow policy is, for example, a blog on an official newspaper site (e.g. ''The Guardian'') which was written by a staff journalist or regular columnist for the paper. This would be valid, but subsequent posts to the same blog by members of the public would not be. It should be explained clearly and helpfully in the edit summary (and if necessary on the article talk page) exactly why the source was removed. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would go along with that.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Wikisource ''needs'' someone with your passion. [[s:Wikisource:Sports]] doesn't mention boxing. Someone needs to create [[s:Wikisource:Boxing]] We have a few poor quality works in [[s:Category:Boxing]]. |
|||
== "more commonly"? == |
|||
As an example, I have set up [[s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu]] and [[s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 2.djvu]], where you can clean up and improve existing biographies written long ago. e.g. [[s:Page:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu/81|Thomas Smallwood]]. Simply log in, click edit, and fix the [[Optical character recognition|OCR]] errors. The Wikisource community will help you with the syntax voodoo; you'll get the hang of things pretty quickly. |
|||
Vintage, your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volunteer_%28Irish_republican%29&diff=105891966&oldid=103914662 most recent edit] to the [[Volunteer (Irish republican)]] article asserts that "it is more commonly used to describe a "rank and file" member, similar to that of a [[Private (rank)|Private]]". From the presentation of evidence on the talk page, I would disagree. In fact, I woudl say the opposite. I would prefer you to say it could mean either, and not give more weight to one than the other, as you cannot tell either way from the evidence. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I would disagree - the only explicit evidence shows the term in used to denote a rank and file or ordinary member of the IRA akin to a Private.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::We need another opinion. I'll ask Tyrenious. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Cool!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I'll be happy to set up projects for any old book that interests you; any topic, any language. I'd rather spend my time helping you settle into Wikisource rather than spend that same time in arbitration or investigating socks. |
|||
== WP:IRA == |
|||
After a few months, you can then appeal your Wikipedia ban either to Arbcom or to the community. |
|||
You know Vintagekits, we've got a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army#Participants|Participants]] list over at the [[WP:IRA]]. It'd look real fine with you name in it. ;) <b>[[User:Johnathan_Swift|<span style="color:#006600">Erin Go Bragh</span>]]</b>[[User talk:Johnathan Swift|<sup>talk</sup>]] 10:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Please do come over. We are very friendly and only bite if you ask us very nicely. ;-) Gotta to be beat all that poetry stuff that some love! We need more sport, things of real consequence. More than happy to show you the ropes, and it is great for building up resources and links to be used here. [[User:Billinghurst|billinghurst]] ([[User talk:Billinghurst|talk]]) 11:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Volunteer v member== |
|||
<s> I checked mediation; there was no final decision, so I have as much right qas you to use "member" rather than Volunteer. I left messages with [[:User:Logoistic]] and Shyam asking about this as well, but have not heard back yet.</s> |
|||
==Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions== |
|||
'''You are not going to be allowed to use pro-IRA propaganda on an encyclopaedia'''. |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
As a party in ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles|The Troubles]]'' arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Amendment_1:_New_remedy:_Discretionary_Sanctions|here]]'''. |
|||
<s> Like I said -- show me/link me to a final decision in mediation or arbitration ruling that uses of terms such as IRA Volunteer and Óglach are acceptable on this encyclopaedia. Until then ... </s> |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
''For the Arbitration Committee'' |
|||
Q: ''DO you not think you should not edit it until they get back to you then and also regarding the message you just left me may I also remind you of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL''--Vintagekits 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
'''[[User:Seddon|Seddon]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]</sup>|<sup>[[wmuk:Main_Page|WikimediaUK]]</sup> 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
A: No, I do not think I can roll over and let you make so many edits that they are unchangeable or left by attrition. I also wonder why YOU DO NOT wait until they get back to you. '''You refuse to show me any proof that the mediation or arbitration has been resolved in your favour.''' |
|||
== VK is blocked indefinitely, not retired == |
|||
Cheers, |
|||
[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Why is the tagging of his user page with [[:template:indefblocked|{indefblocked}]] even up for debate? Why are certain people so absolutely desparate to make themselves look like tag teaming edit warriors that are utterly blind to reality? Considering there are already descriptions of this nature of these exact editors before arbcom right now, you would think they might take the hint and actually stop acting like tag teaming edit warriors. It is precisely this sort of lack of [[WP:CLUE|clue]] about reality that got VK indeffed in the first place. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I found the mediation disposition and it is not very helpful: |
|||
:If the blocking admin did not put the tag up, other editors should not. It is unnecessary [[WP:BEAR|bear poking]]. This user has contributed a lot of content to Wikipedia; he may be blocked indefinitely but we have not shut the door behind them, and adding a tag that queues their userpage for deletion like we do to mere vandals is insensitive at best. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
''Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article.'' |
|||
::This is the same kind of logic that allowed him to be 'retired' for the past 6 months when he wasn't, allowing him to flip off the countless people who rightly pointed that fact out, hilariously, even Giano. VK's feelings are paramount I guess, plain common sense and consideration for other users has no place here, as usual. If the template serves no purpose, then delete it. How it is in anyway usefull to Wikipedia as a whole to suggest to all visitors to this page that VK is not indef blocked, but has merely wandered off into the wilderness and could return at any time, is utterly beyond me. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The above can be used to legitimize almost any well-intentioned or scholarly edits. |
|||
::And not that it even matters, but Beeblebrox was the admin who originally revoked VK's talk page privelages on 12 November, and he was the one who then placed the indef blocked tag here one hour after VK was indef blocked the same day [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVintagekits&action=historysubmit&diff=325376288&oldid=324924104], which Rlevse the final blocker has never seemingly objected to. It was only in the subsequent intervention hours later by you Xeno that suddenly this tag is apparently not appropriate. If none of you admins can agree as to how the template should be used, that's fine, but don't pretend like this convention of 'must be placed by the blocker' has any legitimacy at all. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, this issue perhaps needs to be clarified at the appropriate venue to try and get folks on the same page. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
We are going to have to come to a decision ourselves, it seems. |
|||
I suggest, in good faith, that you can use volunteer with a small v ("v", not "V"), but not try to sneak Óglach in as though it were part of a translation of the person's name from English to Irish, which you know it is not. Fair??!! Let me know before setting off a revert war.[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::That is a fair interpretation of the consensus agreement. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|With regards to your comments on [[:{{{1}}}]]: }}Please see Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|no personal attacks]] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocks]] for disruption. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. {{{2|Thank you.}}}<!-- {{uw-npa2}} --> [[User:Shyam Bihari| <font color="black">'''Shyam'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shyam Bihari|<font color="orange">'''T'''</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Shyam Bihari|<font color="red">'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 21:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Seconded. Your tone is quite uncalled for on this page. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:It's just VK's best buddies trying to be as disruptive as him, I bet that within a few months they will all be going down the same line as he is. Being sensitive to VK is a laugh, since when was he ever sensitive? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Jeni|<span style="color:deeppink">Jeni</span>]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Jeni|<span style="color:deeppink">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I think the key points are: |
|||
* First definition is "member". |
|||
* This is followed immediately by IRA's own definition of "volunteer". |
|||
* However, in the text of the article, we do not refer to the member with a title as "Volunteer O'Brien", in the way we might mention "Private Smith" in a regular army. This is because mainstream sources do not do this, whose precedent we follow under [[WP:NOR]]. |
|||
* volunteer can be used in the main text of the article to refer to a member when it is required stylistically e.g. "several volunteers stayed at the farm, because "several members stayed at the farm" sounds stilted. An alternative might be "several members of the IRA stayed at the farm." This would depend on the context. |
|||
* The consensus was lower case v ''for the time being''. |
|||
* It has now been shown that "Volunteer" is applied as a title, so I suggest it is upper case in the first definition as a title, but thereafter not used as a title but only as generic, when it will be lower case. |
|||
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vintagekits&diff=325444792&oldid=325444506] I am not VK's best buddy; in fact I barely know him. However, I do not think treating a long-time contributor like a garden-variety troll or vandal is appropriate - no matter who that contributor may be. Adding the "indef blocked" template serves no constructive purpose and if the blocking admin wanted it there, they would have added it themself. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::*jeni, it is just that sort of negative and uninformed comment that has caused most of the problems which surround VK and irritated him so. If you read some of the diffs surrounding this case, you will know that far from being one of VK's best buddies, I am merely one of many that want to see things brought to a satisfactory and happy conclusion for all. This may be a happy conclusion for you, but it is not happy or even satifactory for many others. I am not re-hashing the debate that has been had, but if you think this will be the conclusion and the end of Vintagekits then you are indeed uninformed. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Re. the last point: this is my idea, but as yet has not been accepted by others, so we stick with the consensus of lower case until it has. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::* Xeno is right. Regardless of the correctness of the indef block (I am in two minds about it myself), dancing on someone's grave is looked on dimly both IRL ''and'' on Wikipedia. Stop it, please. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<span style="color:black">Black Kite</span>]]</b> 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::* Ditto. I was just about to say the same thing. Grave dancing is not welcomed. Our goal is to help contributors, not push them over the edge and celebrate when they fail. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::*I'm guessing none of you then give a monkeys about the people who are utterly confused when they arrive here and are greeted with the impression VK has just wandered off, or were similarly concerned about the treatment of the dozens of people who were greeted with such sensitity here when they arrived because of one or other of VK's edits to find a 'retired' editor was more than active, and duly commented as such. None of these people seem to be in your considerations at all. This is supposed to be a community, where basic things like notifications of status have a pretty obvious and logical purpose. Pandering to the sensitivites of people blocked after one of the largest shows of community displeasure I have ever seen for an established contributor, is utterly secondary to plain and simple common sense tbh. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::*The first thing I do to check an editors activity level is look at their contributions page. And the first thing you are presented with at [[Special:Contributions/Vintagekits]] is the fact that they are indefinitely blocked. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*I'm guessing that's what most experienced editors do (although its a bit of a fiddle to do even for experienced users for the likes of Giano with his multiple redirected user pages), but Wikipedia is not made up of just experienced users as you well know. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Let the administrators decide. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Which ones? The ones who placed the tag, or the ones who removed it? [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::If necessary, contact the [[User: Jimbo Wales|administrator-in-chief]]. If one wishs Vk exiled, one shouldn't be risking a block, over Vk's userpage. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Considering Jimbo once said that if he weren't American, he would have loved to be born British, I think that's an <s>excellent</s> crazy suggestion. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh, for crying out loud, somebody who cares should just ask Beeblebrox if he wants [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVintagekits&action=historysubmit&diff=325376288&oldid=324924104 his original placement of the tag] restored or not. And regardless of the response, move along afterwards. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The next person who edit wars over the tag earns themselves an indefinite block of their own, and I will press for a formal ban. In the face of any objection, we should err on the side of decency, compassion, and polite behavior, and ''not'' screw around with the user and usertalk space associated with others.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:First mention in [[Antony Gormley]] should be ''member'' not ''volunteeer'' per above. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 19:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:An indef block or ban, is a little heavy. A 1-hour block would likely do the trick, IMHO. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:For crying out loud, it is just a silly little tag. Just let it be people. The presence or lack of tag doesn't do anything to change the status quo. |
|||
==Sir Norman Stronge== |
|||
:Why so many want to edit war over a tag is beyond me, but to suggest edit warring should result in an indefinite block and formal ban is beyond ridiculous. It isn't even remotely that important. There are a thousand ways people could better spend their time 1) arguing over the tag and 2) worrying what other people think about it. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
You have broken the 3 re-write rule and action will be taken as soon as I alert someone to it.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, Thaddeus, it's not just a tag -- it's a tag that says "Hey, everybody, come delete me!"--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:You obviously have ZERO understanding of [[WP:3RR]].--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: And frankly, anyone who even thinks about deleting it will get a [[WP:WHEEL|trout]] followed by an [[WP:BLOCK|even bigger trout]]. Just ... don't. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<span style="color:black">Black Kite</span>]]</b> 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh no, this is exactly what you did: |
|||
''"All we are saying.... is give peace a chance"''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations. |
|||
::::--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Please report it, I am due a laugh!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::For what it's worth I have done. I do hope it amuses you.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Let me know the outcome (as if I cant predict that one!!!)--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The outcome is that if you engage in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_Norman_Stronge%2C_8th_Baronet&diff=106430339&oldid=106426977 this edit warring] again you will be blocked. 3RR is not an entitlement, it is a ''maximum''. I trust this will provide the laugh you are due. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:so I made two reverts and [[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] made two reverts but I am the only one warring? A little harsh I think.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It is a little harsh, but this is with prevention in mind, rather than cure. It also takes into account the general situation and the need to damp down on user conduct which is constantly skirting the boundaries of what is acceptable, as, for example, the tone of your remarks above, which do not strike me as a [[WP:CIVIL|CIVIL]] manner of discourse. If this situation continues to deteriorate, then it will get harsher, I'm sure, for you and any other editors who choose to act as if this is a school playground feud, rather than an encyclopedia. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Why the NPOV tag? Please reply on his page. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 08:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The best solution I've found in these situations is often to delete the userpage altogether. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==[[WP:CIVIL]]== |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kittybrewster&diff=106431501&oldid=106431090 This edit] is taunting and not civil. You have been protected from harrassment so don't engage in provocation of others. Continued behaviour of this nature will result in being blocked. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I didnt realise that I was taunt, merely sticking up for myself against false accusations. If it was considered taunting then I apologise.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 16:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I would rather it stayed as is, if reality and common sense isn't going to win the day. The sooner that uninformed readers learn about the various idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia, like the running joke non-status of tags, the better for them. Coming here and finding a red-link won't help them on this learning path one bit. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Request for Comment]]== |
|||
:Plus deletion removes some of the evidence from those users seeking answers to the question as to why VK is blocked indefinitely from editing the site (presuming that is that they get that far in their knowledge quest, and have passed the first hurdle in knowing not to trust any tag they see on a random users page and to instead delve behind the scenes, WP:CSI style) [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Please be advised that I have lodged a [[Request for Comment]] into your agenda, your behaviour on Wikipedia and your unacceptable treatment of other editors.[[User:El chulito|El chulito]] 02:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the link you want is [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics]]. You haven't actually filed an RfC into the things you said; you've filed a RfC on issues relating to an article, not to a user. By the way, you're the only person who doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the mediation consensus. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
My reasoning for threatening an indefinite block are simple. This kind of edit warring is disruptive, and is all about [[WP:POINT|making silly points]] [[WP:BATTLE|in a conflict that has nothing to do with improving an encyclopedia]]. Quite frankly, its often grave-dancing behavior, which should be strictly discouraged. I have no tolerance for such displays, and neither should any of you.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Mediation consensus== |
|||
You are not carrying out the consensus format which was member then volunteer. I have made the change to it as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_McCaughey&diff=prev&oldid=106502081 here.] Please stick to it. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Please keep in mind to use small "v" for volunteer. I have corrected it on some of the pages, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kieran_Doherty&diff=prev&oldid=106607680], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_Feeney&diff=prev&oldid=106607898], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell&diff=prev&oldid=106607948], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seamus_Donnelly&diff=prev&oldid=106608540], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Dickson&diff=prev&oldid=106608663], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Coen&diff=prev&oldid=106608710], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kieran_Nugent&diff=prev&oldid=106608764], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liam_Quinn&diff=prev&oldid=106608874], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddy_Quinn_%28Irish_republican%29&diff=prev&oldid=106608931], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Reid_%28Irish_republican%29&diff=prev&oldid=106609030], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Se%C3%A1n_Savage&diff=prev&oldid=106609101], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_MacManus&diff=prev&oldid=106609168], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Begley&diff=prev&oldid=106609299]. Please correct on all other pages as well. Regards, [[User:Shyam Bihari| <font color="black">'''Shyam'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shyam Bihari|<font color="orange">'''T'''</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Shyam Bihari|<font color="red">'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Why is this editor's talk page being vandalized?== |
|||
==[[Martin McCaughey]]== |
|||
An indefinite block is not a ban. If Vk chooses to retire that's their decision. Their block was unseemly enough and pushed by the worst kind of partisans, but now to have this abusive antagonistic and disruptive display is outrageous. Anyone who alters this editor's talk page from <s>their</s> Vintagekits' desired state should be indefinitely blocked. Simple as that. This kind of bullying is unacceptable and makes clear the kind of abuse this editor was suffering. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I have added a "{{[[Template:prod|prod]]}}" template to the article [[Martin McCaughey]], suggesting that it be deleted according to the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion]] process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]]" and [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|Wikipedia's deletion policy]]). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at [[Talk:Martin McCaughey|its talk page]]. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for Deletion]], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion criteria]]. [[User:Shyam Bihari| <font color="black">'''Shyam'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shyam Bihari|<font color="orange">'''T'''</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Shyam Bihari|<font color="red">'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Just one question, why are some of ya describing Vk as ''they''? Vk is a ''him''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Please do not remove {{t1|prod}} without explaining the reason and inproving the article. Regards, [[User:Shyam Bihari| <font color="black">'''Shyam'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shyam Bihari|<font color="orange">'''T'''</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Shyam Bihari|<font color="red">'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 10:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: See [[Singular they]]. [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 01:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::I did state that I would add the detail and references later when I removed the prod. I have added the details of the references now and will add fuller detail later tonight. regards.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Phew, I thought ya'll were describing Vk as having 'multiple personalities'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Not appropriate. == |
|||
Your referencing is below par. It doesn't display the details as it should and as I've mentioned before. I've spelt it out above: |
|||
This back and forth bickering is not appropriate on a banned users talk page. The hint should have been taken when the user page was protected. If it continues I will protect this page and take a trout to those who led me to do so. Take it to ANI(or even better just drop it), arguing here is nothing more than a drama magnet. [[User talk:Chillum|<small><sup><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.2em 0.3em; class=texhtml; color:#C53F17">'''Chillum'''</span></sup></small>]] 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
For a book it might look like this: |
|||
::Ah Chillum, you are in error; VK is not banned but blocked, a subtle difference I agree, but a nevertheless a difference. The problem is that all debate that lead to the blocking, before and after, is null and void. The reason for this is that the Arbitrator and those few that quickly arrived in the night and pushed the block through in an hour were in error by their unnecessary haste. Therefore all debate that followed was biased, poisoned and influenced by the fact that an Arbitator has already declared him guilty. This is the reason I want VK to take the matter to Arbcom (RLevse if he is still around, recused). Then, at least we will have a fair and impartial result, otherwise the bickering here is unlikely to cease. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 07:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agreed. --<span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></span> 10:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:<nowiki><ref> Smith, Timothy: "A Guide to Planets", page 29. Solar Publishing, 2001 </ref></nowiki> |
|||
:I've currently 'no clues' as to Vk's status. Is he retired, banned, indef-blocked, a victim of abduction, re-programed, etc? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::He added the retired tag some months ago, and resumed editing with the tag in place. He is currently blocked indefinitely. Personally, at this point, unless the editor files a request for lifting the block with the ArbCom soon, I would favor turning the user page into a redirect to the talk page, and then full protecting the redirect. It would allow someone who really wanted to see the user page history to still do so, but it would take a bit of pointed effort to do so. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 17:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okie Dokie. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::The talk page history is viewable. If this editor chooses to retire and to post something on their page accordingly that's within their discretion. The vandalism and campaign of attacks against this editor, who's already been blocked indefinitely, need to stop. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Which edits were [[WP:Vandalism]]? — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Have ''you'' read the history CoM? His (latest) 'retirement' was 3 months, 800 edits, 5 blocks and 30 edit wars ago. Giano is just playing his usual role, VK is indef blocked, defacto banned, and will remain so barring a miracle. Still, new arbcom, new direction and all that. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::So let him go quietly as he chooses. There's no need to rub salt in his wounds or to stick unsightly templates on his usertalk page. It looks like a vendetta in a dispute that you and those siding with you already won. There's no policy restricting people from retiring or unretiring. Just leave him be as you would want to be treated had you been the one to receive such a harsh sanction. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Why is this such a problem for you Mick? <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::You can't get that from the numerous statements above? [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Alright. New idea, everyone out, this is a dead horse argued on the page of a non-present editor, but if you insist on continuing to discuss it, do it on [[WP:ANI]] or I can sacrifice my own [[user talk:Tznkai|talk page]] to the task.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree that it should be discussed elsewhere. Vintagekits' page should be restored to the state he put it until there is a consensus directing otherwise. The standard policy seems clear in favoring respect for other editors even when they've been sanctioned and to allow editors to retire and unretire at their discretion. This looks like a disruptive campaign of antagonism by partisans who aren't satisfied with the indefinite block they already won. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Trouts all around. Take a hint, this should be discussed in a neutral venue or not at all. VK is not participating in this discussion and that is the only reason to have a discussion here. I am protecting this page for 24 hours, hopefully by tomorrow more sense will be shown. [[User talk:Chillum|<small><sup><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.2em 0.3em; class=texhtml; color:#C53F17">'''Chillum'''</span></sup></small>]] 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
An online newspaper source would be: |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)]] == |
|||
:<nowiki><ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref></nowiki> |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|left|48px|]]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|deletion]]. The nominated article is [[Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)]]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and "[[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]]"). |
|||
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)]]. Please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). |
|||
If you want to convince people, do it properly. |
|||
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the [[WP:AfD|articles for deletion]] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. |
|||
Also I think you've misunderstood prod. You should leave it in place as it gives you 5 days breathing space to get the article up to scratch. Then remove it. If you take it down straightaway with the article unchanged, AfD tends to follow as a matter of course. |
|||
'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a [[WP:BOT|bot]]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --[[User:Erwin85Bot|Erwin85Bot]] ([[User talk:Erwin85Bot|talk]]) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think I did misunderstand the prod, but I did state in the edit summary that I would sort it out that night. Anyway, its done now.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==RfD nomination of [[:'The Great White Hope'.]]== |
|||
::Hey, read it! "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days. Prod, concern: non-notable person. This template was added 2007-02-08; five days from then is 2007-02-13." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_McCaughey&oldid=106540286] [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I have nominated {{la|'The Great White Hope'.}} for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#'The Great White Hope'.|the discussion page]]. Thank you. — <span style="font-family:gill sans">[[User:The Man in Question|The Man in Question]]</span> [[User_talk:The Man in Question|<small>(in question)</small>]] 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::To be fair it doesnt say anything about iproving the article first.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 10:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::But [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] of other edits. [[User:Shyam Bihari| <font color="black">'''Shyam'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shyam Bihari|<font color="orange">'''T'''</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Shyam Bihari|<font color="red">'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 12:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::: See also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour]]- a similar AFD debate [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Request for feedback == |
|||
There seems to be some confusion over prod. Vintagekits was perfectly within his rights to remove the prod template the first time, and it shouldn't have been re-added after that. Contested prods should go to AfD. The [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|policy on prods]] is quite clear about all of this. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 02:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, I do agree with Mr. Darcy. Sorry for bothering to Vintagekits. [[User:Shyam Bihari| <font color="black">'''Shyam'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shyam Bihari|<font color="orange">'''T'''</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Shyam Bihari|<font color="red">'''C'''</font>]])</sup> 04:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Thirded. In case it wasn't clear, what I meant by "you should leave it in place" was that it is in your interest not to remove it immediately (even though you are entitled to) as it's likely to invoke an AfD. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 05:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Alright VK, Kattis from the HB here. Myself and the Da finally finished out wiki page and was wondering what the next step is re; feedback. Type this into the wiki search bar... |
|||
==AfD nomination of [[Raymond Gilmour]]== |
|||
Free State Intelligence Department - Oriel House |
|||
An editor has nominated [[Raymond Gilmour]], an article on which you have worked or that you created, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|deletion]]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "[[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]]"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at {{#if:Raymond Gilmour | [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour]] | [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour]] }} and please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the [[WP:AfD|articles for deletion]] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. '''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a [[WP:BOT|bot]]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. [[User:Jayden54Bot|Jayden54Bot]] 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not sure if the page is properly live yet as its not coming up when I google search it. Could you make the other members of the 'The Irish Republicanism WikiProject' group aware as I couldn't see a 'talk' tab to share this. |
|||
==Major Bonkers== |
|||
Thanks again. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.203.209.68|84.203.209.68]] ([[User talk:84.203.209.68|talk]]) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Unreferenced BLPs== |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astrotrain&curid=280275&diff=107423788&oldid=107415832 He's at it again....] I added a more reliable source to the [[Billy Reid (Irish republican)|Billy Reid]] article anyway, the usual suspects won't be able to say Peter Taylor isn't reliable. [[User:One Night In Hackney|One Night In Hackney]] 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] Hello Vintagekits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a [[WP:BOT|bot]] alerting you that '''4''' of the articles that you created are tagged as[[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources| Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons]]. The [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure [[WP:VERRIFY|verifiability]], all biographies should be based on [[WP:RELIABLE|reliable sources]]. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current ''[[:Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs|{{PAGESINCATEGORY:All_unreferenced_BLPs}}]]'' article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list: |
|||
:Cheers--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Major Bonkers has been warned not to repeat this behaviour. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
# [[Robenílson Vieira de Jesus]] - <small>{{findsources|Robenílson Vieira de Jesus}}</small> |
|||
== You corrected me == |
|||
# [[Georgian Popescu]] - <small>{{findsources|Georgian Popescu}}</small> |
|||
# [[Asylbek Talasbaev]] - <small>{{findsources|Asylbek Talasbaev}}</small> |
|||
# [[Cathal Boylan]] - <small>{{findsources|Cathal Boylan}}</small> |
|||
Thanks!--[[User:DASHBot|DASHBot]] ([[User talk:DASHBot|talk]]) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Mark McAllister]]== |
|||
you corrected me for deleting a part of the Celtic article. I deleted a part that said supporters of Celtic are not victims of sectarianism. They are. Thats what I'm contact you about. |
|||
[[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|48px|]] |
|||
: Rory, I didnt revert a bit about sectartianism I reverted this paragraph. ''"In 2004 Celtic launched its own digital TV channel [[Celtic TV]] available in the UK through [[Setanta Sports]] on satellite and cable platforms. Since 2002 Celtic's Internet TV channel, [[Channel67]] (previously known as Celtic Replay), has broadcast Celtic's own content worldwide, offers live match coverage to subscribers outside the UK, and now provides 3 online channels."'' - regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The article [[Mark McAllister]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]  because of the following concern: |
|||
==La Rouche== |
|||
:<b>Non-notable footballer who fails [[WP:ATHLETE]] as the Irish leagues are not fully professional. Also fails notability and verifiability due to lack of sources.</b> |
|||
If you havent seen it see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2]], [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. |
|||
==Sligo== |
|||
If you have not realised just to clarify sligo was not protected. So a new requested would be required to protect. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:cool.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Mark McAllister|the article's talk page]]. |
|||
==Article talk pages== |
|||
It is better to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astrotrain&curid=280275&diff=107681855&oldid=107555798 discuss an article] on the article talk page. Other editors can then participate. If there is no response to your talk, you then have effective clearance to implement a change. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. The [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion process]] can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> -- [[User:BigDom|<span style="color:#990033">Big</span>]][[User talk:BigDom|<span style="color:#3BB0FF"><small>Dom</small></span>]] 12:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==[[WP:BLP]]== |
|||
Gratuitous [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raymond_Gilmour&diff=107399595&oldid=107399489 derogatory comments of this nature] are a violation of [[WP:BLP]]. Please make sure you do not do this again, or you are likely to be blocked. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think this again is a bit ott when dealing with me, I called them traitors in an AfD. Hardly strong stuff, especially when you compare that to Astrotrain, Major Bonkers, David Lauder et al commenting on every AfD that they are "terrorists", or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diarmuid_O%27Neill&diff=104422570&oldid=104408468 this] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diarmuid_O%27Neill&diff=prev&oldid=104408468 this] on the Diarmuid O'Neill AfD.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry, Vintagekits, but you're mistaken here. Calling them traitors is, in the eyes of Wikipedia, identical to calling them terrorists, whether in articles or on talk pages or on AfD. Just don't do it. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]], thats what I am saying - on every AfD the usual mob have been throwing "terrorist" and worse around without a word being said.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I have issued similar warnings when anyone has used unsubstantiated derogatory terms about a [[WP:BLP|living person]], including comment made about you. Another consideration is that they may well be a large number of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] (in wikipedia terms) who substantiate the use of the term for certain individuals. Do you have the same for the use of the word "traitor"? Let us take a legal point of view. Someone who has been found guilty in a court of planting bombs or whatever is not going to have much success if they sue someone for calling them a terrorist. Calling someone a traitor who has not been convicted in a court of "treacherous" acts, could result in a very different outcome. However, the basic principle, as MrDarcy has pointed out, is that [[WP:BLP]] applies equally. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Fair enough Ty, anyway search Google with any of their names and any of the following words stoolie, rat, grass, supergrass or traitor and there will be plenty of hits. As an aside its funny that the so called "terrorists" are the ones with the support both on the street and in the ballot box while the likes of O'Callaghan, Gilmour et al can never return to Ireland for fear the community would send them to an early grave. Anyway point taken as long as similar disparaging from the other side are dealt with in a similarly heavy handed manner.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I have no doubt the street would tell its own tale. However, this jungle is the wiki one and these are its laws, like it or not. If the Google hits reveal reliable sources, then they can be used. If not, then they are irrelevant for our present purposes. My aim is to treat both, any and all sides equally. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] nomination of [[:The Lying Down Game]] == |
|||
==Brendan Hughes== |
|||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|42px]]</div>I have nominated [[The Lying Down Game]], an article that you created, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lying Down Game]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Cheers for starting the article, it's definitely an important one in my opinion. I'm a bit busy working on other articles for the next couple of days, but I'll try and chip in when I can. There's a couple of sources you can use [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/reports/inside.html here] and [http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/ns121700.htm here], one of them provides the citation needed for "The Dark". Definitely include the bit about his escape from prison and being on the run as "Arthur McAllister-toy salesman". I've got a couple of books I need to look through for some other information as well. Thanks. [[User:One Night In Hackney|One Night In Hackney]] 07:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg== |
|||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">'''[[Image:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|left|⚠]]'''</span> Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
==Sources== |
|||
Take a look at [[Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill#Analysis of sources used]] when you get a chance. Cheers. [[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Cheers and good work!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
'''PLEASE NOTE:''' |
|||
==An Phoblacht== |
|||
* I am a [[WP:BOT|bot]], and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. |
|||
This article was taken from An Phoblacht’s Remembering the Past page. It was reproduced with the consent and permission of Aran Foley, the journalist who produced the article. For a much more detailed history, An Phoblacht has its own page. Should you wish to confirm this An Phoblacht can be contacted on the links provided. (unsigned comment from 83.71.179.186) |
|||
* I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. |
|||
*I'm not sure how you can prove that?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Example&editintro=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests&create=Request here] to file an un-delete request. |
|||
* To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page. |
|||
*If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off [[User:DASHBot/F5|here]] and leave a message on [[User talk:Tim1357|my owner's talk page]]. |
|||
== RE: Template:WikiProject IRA == |
|||
Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:DASHBot|DASHBot]] ([[User talk:DASHBot|talk]]) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
If the scope of the project was expanded to include more aspects of Irish republicanism, then I think that your choice of banner would be infinitely better and much more appropriate than the IRA poster. However, as the scope of the project is limited to the IRA, the 1916 flag (a symbol for republicanism and nationalism, which are rather broad ideals) might not work. Slán go fóill! [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]][[User talk:Gaillimh|<sup>Conas tá tú?</sup>]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:we are in 100% agreement--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Clothing store listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
|||
==William Fleming== |
|||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Clothing store]]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Clothing store'' redirect, you might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 7#Clothing store|the redirect discussion]] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, [[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|his otters]] and a clue-bat • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|Otters want attention]])</sup> 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Possibly unfree File:Kieran Nugent.jpg == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republican_Army/Preparation/William_Fleming|There's one reference]] for you. [[User:One Night In Hackney|One Night In Hackney]] 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Kieran Nugent.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files]] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the [[:File:Kieran Nugent.jpg|file description page]]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 December 19#File:Kieran Nugent.jpg|the discussion]] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Seán1905== |
|||
:This user is also known as Donnchadh or Cael, see [http://politics.ie/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1986_Sinn_F%C3%A9in_Ard_Fheis] where the tried to vandalise the article there, at the same time as Seán1905 was doing the same to the [[Republican Sinn Féin]] article here, whilst [http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=16889 here] he was attacking me on politics.ie. as Cael. --[[User:Padraig3uk|padraig3uk]] 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Vandalism and POV disputes== |
|||
You are quuite experienced enought o know the difference between vandalism and a POV dispute so poleas e dont make empty vandalism claims when you are involved in a POV dispute with an editor who you know is not a vandal, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 14:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I didnt say you were vandalising, please reread what I said. Also you cannot whitewash out the term Malvinas just because it might fall under the category of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]].--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==List of British flags== |
|||
Very few things are "official" in British law. English is not even the "official" language of the UK, "God Ssve the Queen" is not the "official" anthem, and the Union Jack is not the "official" flag. The NI flag is not historical as in a [[de facto]] sense (as is clearly stated over and over again, which is not actually necessary to state IMO) it is in present use. Report me if you wish, but I do not see anything "uncivil" in my edit summary. I'm afraid all I have stated is the truth behind your little game. [[User:Jonto|Jonto]] 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
1. It was the flag designated for '''use by the regional government'''. Since it's creation, it was always the defacto civil flag and still is. Irrespective, in British contexts "officialness" has little definition. The talk page you link to offers little new, apart from your regurgitation of issues that were covered months, if not years ago. |
|||
2. If you say so - I'm sure I will lose lots of sleep over it. [[User:Jonto|Jonto]] 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Re: Ulster disam. article- Go raibh míle maith agat a chara! [[User:Tír Eoghain abú|Tír Eoghain abú]] |
|||
== Thank you Vintagekits == |
|||
[[User:Vintagekits|Vintage]] thank to again for interest. If you could, would it be possible to link this discussion page to the John Mitchel page. I think it would be very informative, and interesting to those who may visit the page. It would also avoid other users making the same mistakes I have made. I don’t have a problem with using the term Londonderry, were it is appropriate, but in all the literature, I have read on the subject, the term is never used. All I want to do is place a the disposal of other users is as much information on the subject as possible. I have started to reference my edits, on the advice of all who contributed to the article. I think one of the most useful people to contribute to this article will be [[User:Ben W Bell|Ben W Bell]], because he his pushing me to get it right. Like I said, could you link this materiel, or possible put it on the John Mitchel page, other users will defiantly benefit, and we can avoid all this in the future.Best regards, [[User:Domer48|Domer]] |
|||
==Kittybrewster== |
|||
If you don't stop harrassing Kittybrewster I shall report YOU! Kittybrewster has done sterling work for Wikipedia and is an intelligent, educated individual. We know nothing about you, other than you support the IRA. [[User:David Lauder|David Lauder]] 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I consider this a breach of [[WP:NPA]]. Please back up your statement with facts.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==How to back up complaints== |
|||
Whether posting to me or elsewhere, it is essential to provide diffs of alleged problems. It is up to you as the complainant to provide ''proof'', not just make allegations. Just in case you're not conversant with this, it means clicking on the history button at the top of the article, talk page or whatever and finding the edit that proves your point. You copy the URL at the top of the page, then put a square bracket either end, as in this example:<br> |
|||
<nowiki>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=63910624&oldid=63910146]</nowiki><br> |
|||
Then somebody else can go straight to it and see what you're talking about. You should provide all the relevant diffs concerning the problem. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== RE: Barons and Baronettes == |
|||
Heho, I quote from [[Wikipedia:Notability (royalty)]] |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
British Peers and holders of courtesy titles (i.e. heirs apparent), as well as those holding the Scottish substantive title of "Master" or "Mistress" given to heirs are automatically notable, as are their spouses. Articles on spouses may be merged with articles on Peers if there is little chance of their articles becoming more than stubs. Other relations of British peers only qualify if they qualify under WP:BIO. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
Barons are peers and as such they fell under this point. Baronets are not automatically notable (at the moment) - here are then other (additional) "features" necessary, for example diplomatic, political or academic offices. I hope I could satisfy you :-). Greetings <span style="color:darkgreen">~~ [[User:Phoe|<span style="color:darkgreen">Phoe</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Phoe|<span style="font-family:sans-serif;color:darkgreen">talk</span>]]</sub> 22:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ </span> |
|||
/ |
|||
*As Barons do not automatically fall under that ''"Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable. The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses."'' so do not automatically qualify and because they are "Lesser nobility and gentry" they need to satisfy [[WP:BIO]]. |
|||
Under the "Lesser nobility and gentry" section of [[Wikipedia:Notability (royalty)]] it states - |
|||
''A member of the lesser nobility or [[Landed gentry|gentry]] who does not meet the above standards may be notable if he or she [[WP:V|verifiably]] meets any '''two''' of the following criteria: |
|||
#The subject serves in an official capacity within the government, such as an [[Ambassador]] or [[Administrator of the Government|Administrator]]. |
|||
#The subject is a member of one or more national orders, such as the [[Order of the Chrysanthemum]] or the [[Order of the Garter]]. |
|||
#The subject is no further than 8th in the [[Succession order|order of succession]] to the throne. |
|||
'''If the subject meets only one of these requirements, he or she may still be notable under the terms of [[WP:BIO]]'''.'' |
|||
This suggests that Barons and Baronettes do not qualify under [[WP:ROYAL]]. |
|||
regards.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Barons don't belong to the "Lesser nobility and gentry". The Members of the [[House of Lords]] are all [[Hereditary Peer|Peer]]s and have either a [[hereditary|hereditary barony]] or a [[life peerage|life barony]]. Even in the term [[life peers]] the word peer is included. |
|||
::With the "Lesser nobility and gentry", baronets or knights bachelor are meant. They have to meet additonal requirements, how you have posted. <span style="color:darkgreen">~~ [[User:Phoe|<span style="color:darkgreen">Phoe</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Phoe|<span style="font-family:sans-serif;color:darkgreen">talk</span>]]</sub> 22:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ </span> |
|||
::PS: I quote from [[hereditary peer]]: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
The ranks of the Peerage are, in descending order of rank, duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
::<span style="color:darkgreen">~~ [[User:Phoe|<span style="color:darkgreen">Phoe</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Phoe|<span style="font-family:sans-serif;color:darkgreen">talk</span>]]</sub> 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ </span> |
|||
==Taunting== |
|||
Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astrotrain&diff=109054188&oldid=109047341 this edit] and Tyrenius' warning above, I am blocking you 24 hours for taunting [[User:Astrotrain]] during his block. The goal here is to prevent you from taunting him further while he's still on block. This is also a warning that if you do this again you will face a longer-term block. You had absolutely no business inserting yourself into that discussion after the matter had been clearly resolved, and given the rising tensions in your ongoing content dispute with Astrotrain and his friends, your action was completely counterproductive. If you can't behave more civilly in the future, you're not going to be able to edit on Wikipedia. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Can you please recheck this - that comment is not a taunt it is aimed at [[User:Astrotrain]] at all the post was for Kitty's comment above my comment in which Kitty stated "the persistent boring relentlessness of another editor" that obviously breaches both [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] and I was just asked Kitty not to breach the policy- I am not sure how a reminder to not breach policy is a breach of policy? You have either got the posts mixed up or this is a massive case of assuming bad faith. Can yoy please read the comment again and get back to me. regards.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Infact Tyrenious warned Kitty [[User_talk:Kittybrewster#WP:NPA|here]] over that exact comment. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Look at the talk page - the comment isn't indented to appear as a reply to Kittybrewster. It looks to me like it was directed at Astrotrain. And while I don't buy your argument, let me ask you this: Why were you responding there *at all*? You weren't in the discussion. Astrotrain was already blocked. If Kittybrewster attacked you, then the appropriate response is to say nothing to him and to take it to an admin (or [[WP:AN/I]], if it's severe enough) for review. When you jump in like that on a third party's talk page and make a comment that taunts or otherwise targets another user, you're just pouring gasoline on the fire, one that in this case was almost out. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 20:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]], I am telling you honestly that that was a reply to Kitty to remind that editor not to breach both policies. If it was aimed at Astrotrain why would I say that "Havent you been warned about your breaches on [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]" when it was Kitty that was warned about these and not Astrotrain. How can I be the subject or a personal attack and then I remind the editor not to attack me but I get the block. That is possibly THE biggest assumption of bad faith that I have ever read. Can you please reread it. I really hope that you can be big enough to admit that you misread this one. kind regards.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*Additonally, I have just realised the Astrotrain has not even posted there so it is impossible for that comment to be aimed at Astrotrain.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It's on Astrotrain's talk page. Comments on another user's talk page are usually be directed towards that user. I'm not unblocking you because even if we accept your explanation - which I don't - you had no business inserting yourself into a discussion of another user's block on that user's talk page. You know that you're at loggerheads with that user and his cohorts. Don't exacerbate it. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::For God;s sake, I was replying directly to a breach of NPA in the post IMMEDIATELY above my comment, can you not please use some common sense, it is obvious who the comment was directed at. It is not taunting to ask someone to not breach NPA toward me. Do you think it is reasonable to block someone for asking not to be personally attacked but not block the person who carried out the personal attack. It seems to me like you are just hitting me with a block for no reason at all just because you blocked Astrotrain. To consider my comment taunt is a MASSIVE break of assuming good faith. I will self impose a 7 day block on myself if you are not prepared to accept my genuine word that I was not taunting.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::It wasn't obvious to me. In fact, it was obvious to me that in leaving a comment on Astrotrain's talk page, you were talking to Astrotrain. And you still have not provided any explanation for why you showed up in that discussion anyway. It didn't concern you. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:As I have always thought of you as a fair admin, so I am going assume good faith on this and assume that you really do actually think that I was commenting toward Astro and that you are not just saying that as you dont want to change your mind for fear of losing face. I have already shown how I could not have been commenting towards Astrotrain, I believe I have shown that very clearly. As for the question as to why I was on that page in the first place - Kitty had just directed a personal attack towards me - I have the right to ask that editor to cease that type of behaviour.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::''I have the right to ask that editor to cease that type of behaviour.'' You do - on '''his''' talk page. But the fact that this was posted on Astrotrain's talk page, in a thread discussing the fact that I blocked him, says to me that you were taunting him. You've been warned previously not to do so, and given how tensions are escalating among you, Astrotrain, and his cohorts, I felt that a block would both defuse that tension and reinforce the earlier warning. As for any "fear of losing face" ... if I thought I was wrong, I would have unblocked you earlier. I don't think I'm wrong, especially given the sniping from both sides of this debate. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well all I can say is that you have made a genuine mistake then. The comment was 1. Not aimed at Astrotrain and you would have to make a massive leap of bad faith to assume that and 2. was not a taunt (again another massive leap of bad faith) but merely a request to Kitty not to make personal attacks towards me, which he had done in the previous comment and which he had been blocked for previously, hence the wording in my messege when I said "Havent you been warned about your breaches on [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]" - why would I say that to Astrotrain when Astrotrain has never been blocked for any personal attack on me but Kitty was.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 09:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Unblock request== |
==Unblock request== |
||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway. | decline=I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that |
|||
*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <u>or</u> |
|||
*the block is no longer necessary because you |
|||
*#understand what you have been blocked for, |
|||
*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and |
|||
*#will make useful contributions instead. |
|||
Please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. In particular, you should see [[WP:NOTTHEM]] and would have to address the fact that stringent terms have already been attempted before ([[User talk:Vintagekits/terms]]). See also comments at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=404433983#Vintagekits_seeks_unblock ANI discussion about this request]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 11:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
{| align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" |
|||
See discussion at [[WP:ANI#Vintagekits seeks unblock]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
:So far the few who have participated are unanimous in opposing an unblock. Doing this on Christmas is probably not going to win any sympathy. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | {{tick|40}} |
|||
: Can I just point out for the record that VK is '''not''' currently socking, nor has he been - to my knowledge - since his indef block - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 23:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
| style="padding: 0.1em" | |
|||
::In that case, I've no probs with unblocking. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): |
|||
<br><br>Reduced to time served per discussion and editor's promise below |
|||
''Request handled by:'' [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> |
|||
|} |
|||
I've been blocked for 24 hours for taunting by a very good a experienced admin called [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]]. Much of the details of the accusation is set out in the discussion above. Mr. Darcy stated that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astrotrain&diff=109054188&oldid=109047341 this comment] was an attempt to taunt another editor called Astrotrain who had just been banned. However, the comment I made was in reply to the comment made directly above my comment made by [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] which was a comment in breach of [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] that was directed at me. Kittybrewster has previously been warned for breaches of these policies towards me and was again warned [[User_talk:Kittybrewster#WP:NPA|here]] for the exact comment that I am stating that my comment was in relation to. [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] considers that my comment was directed at Astrotrain and not Kitty, however, Astro had not even posted on that discussion and Kitty had, Astro was already block so there was no point in discussing with him at that stage, my comment was "Havent you been warned about your breaches on [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]. Please refrain from this in future" however, Astro has never been warned for [[WP:NPA]] and Kitty was just warned about it lasty week for a comment towards me. My comment was simply in good faith to ask Kitty not to engage in breaches [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] which he had just done with his previous comment toward me. I am hoping that Mr. Darcy has simply misinterptered that situation and once reread will realise that my comment was in good faith and to ask Kitty not to attack me. |
|||
:I will ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::See the thread just above this one for a rather thorough explanation of my reasoning behind the block. I will not oppose an un-block nor will I reblock unless there's a new offense, but I chose not to unblock him because I think that the most likely interpretation is that the taunt was aimed at Astrotrain. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#To say that the comment was aimed at Astrotrain is firstly an assumption, so the accusation is already starting off on shaky ground. |
|||
#To assume that it was aimed at Astrotrain you solely have to base that on the fact that the comment was left on his talk page. That is pretty much the only argument that you are basing the assumption on, and to make that assumption you would have to ignore that |
|||
#Astrotrain had not posted any comment on that discussion |
|||
#Kitty had just made a personal attack on me in the previous post, namely "the persistent boring relentlessness of another editor" |
|||
#My comment comes directly after that personal attack |
|||
#My comment was a request to stop breaching CIVIL and NPA |
|||
#Kitty was then warned for the exact comment to which I am referring to |
|||
#My comment makes reference to previous blocking for breach of NPA on me which Kitty had been blocked for but Astrotrain had not been |
|||
#And the fact that I have told that the comment was not directed at Astrotrain (obviously zero good faith is being assumed and my word as an editor with near 5000 counts for nothing |
|||
#So after ignoring all of that we get to the only possibly piece of evidence that you are using to assume that the comment was directed Astrotrain and that is that I posted the message on his talk page, the reason I posted the request his talk page (again directly after Kitty's comment) was that the breach of CIVIL and NPA occurred on Astrotrain's talk. I have the right to highlight personal attack here and when they occur. |
|||
:I am really astounded that such a massive leap of bad faith and an assumption that ignores all common sense and the plain facts as ended up with someone who was subjected to a personal attack ending up with a 24hr block for requesting the personal attacks stop. As I have said, if this block stands then I will self imposing a weeks block on myself instead on the 24hr that Mr. Darcy put in place in protest at this wild assumption of bad faith at every turn. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 09:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
On careful review of the entire thread, I think it is quite possible that Vintagekits meant his comment as he describes it, i.e. not as a taunt of the blocked editor as Mr. Darcy read it. Frankly, even in that context, the comment would have been much better left unsaid, especially in that location, but it probably wouldn't warrant a block. The most important thing is that you remain civil toward (and for awhile, probably avoid interacting at all with) these editors from now on. Please avoid comments that even could come close to being perceived as attacks or incivility. If you promise to do that I will unblock. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 12:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree, and thank you.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 12:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I am now unblocking on the conditions stated. Please bear our understanding in mind. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Excellent, I feel like a cross between [[Nelson Mandela]] and [[Christopher 'Crip' McWilliams]].--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::The analogy to Nelson Mandela is quite a stretch. I'm not familiar with Mr. McWilliams. Please edit some articles removed from the ones that were involved in the dispute. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 14:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I will stay away from those articles for a few days until things calm down.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Vintagekits did leave a specific complaint on my talk page about this remark by Kittbrewster,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tyrenius#Kittybrewster][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=109054436&oldid=109054087] so I am inclined to believe that the complaint on [[User talk:Astrotrain]] was directed at Kittbrewster, following on from a previous remark by the latter [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kittybrewster&diff=108909309&oldid=108908152], which Vintagekits had already just complained about on my talk page. It seems the odd indenting (or lack thereof) could have given rise to a misinterpretation. The moral is to indent properly so it is indented further than the post you are replying to. Also, following this, it would seem best to make any complaints directly to an admin or relevant notice board. I hope there won't be any cause for that anyway and that things will settle down now. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Wiki Stalking?== |
|||
You seem to be following edits I have made, this is known, I think, as WikiStalking and can be actionable. Please refrain from it, especially when some of the issues are areas you have previously shown no interest in until I edited them.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 23:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I consider this a breach of [[WP:NPA]] if it continues I will be reporting you. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the details of WikiStalking before you go around throwing unfounded accusations about--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::None of my remarks were personal. You do, however, ''seem'' to be drawn to articles which I have edited. Perhaps I am wrong.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::You are wrong, you are accusing me of wikistalking, unless I get an apology I WILL be reporting you.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I cannot apologise. I have not made a personal attack, nor have I blatantly accused you of anything. I stressed that you seem to be...I shall take my chances with the integrity of an administrator.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 23:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Have a look at the heading of this conversation - there in lies the accusation. If it happens again I will take action.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Perhaps that's better.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 00:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::"Wikistalking" means "harrassment". Try referring to [[Wikipedia:Wikistalking]], and it'll take you to [[Wikipedia: harassment]]. Editors are '''allowed''' to follow one anothers edits, presumably that's what it was set up to do. You should have nothing to worry about unless Vintage is breaking policies. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Thank you my Durham friend.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::No problem. I was recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIamlondon&diff=109711620&oldid=109710173 accused of this myself]. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 00:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I am asking you kindly to delete certain comments from the talk-page of Sir Norman Stronge.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*I decline.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Spelling?== |
|||
That was no spelling mistake. My username does not even have an "n" within it. You have yourself relied on protection of exactly the same grounds before.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 00:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Like I told you on Kitty's talk page, I thought your sign was Counter-revolutionary |
|||
::My above comments stand.--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have said all I have to say on the issue, you are no milking it and failing to adhere to [[WP:AGF]].--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Murder vs killing == |
|||
In reference to the recent edit war(s) you have been involved in over use of "murder" over "killing" (or words to that effect), please comment on the issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Logoistic#.22Murder.22_versus_.22killing.22 here] so that we might come to a conclusion. Thank you. [[User:Logoistic|Logoistic]] 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[WP:TPG]]== |
|||
Please study [[WP:TPG]]. Indent talk just one extra colon : than the preceding post, not by an extra half dozen colons. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 01:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Ivor Bell== |
|||
The wonderful [[WP:LEAD|manual of style for lead paragraphs]] says that there shouldn't be references in the lead because everything there should be in the main article and referenced there. [[:Ivor Bell]] has a ref to him being chief of the IRA army council, but that should really go in the body. Is Ivor alive (because if he's still breathing he should be in [[:Category:Living people]]) or dead (in which case the date of his death should normally be given)? Toodle pip, [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Federal Commonwealth Society== |
|||
If you interfere with the posts on AfDs again I will make a complaint on the Administrator's Notice Board. It appears I will not be the first to complain about you. [[User:Christchurch|Christchurch]] 20:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:You are suposed to put new comments at the BOTTOM not the top.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not sure what policy or guideline CC thinks you've violated, but I have added a strong comment explaining that the organization's notability is not established, with a link to the policy. I'm asking you to now stop accosting every keep !voter with questions or criticisms. It may not be a violation of any policy, but it's definitely obnoxious. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thats a bang out of order comment Mr.Darcy, the "usual team" of voters have turned up with "Keep" votes without backing them up. All I am asking is that they qualify their opinions, to classify that as "obnoxious" is again failing to assume good faith on my behalf.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Um, no. Have a look at [[WP:AGF]], since you don't seem to understand the guideline. You don't get to harass keep !voters on an AfD and then run and hide behind AGF. The point about notability has been made. Now please knock it off. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It is a large leap of bad faith to go from requesting clarification of a comment to harassment, combine that with you calling me "obnoxious" and that could be a breach of [[WP:NPA]]. I am not really sure why you seem to have it in for me as I have struck to the rules and policies of wiki or is it that I just get so much mud thrown at me by monarchists that you feel some of it has stuck??--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Stating ''All we need is Major Bonkers and we have the full set.'' was absolutely unnecessary. You have already been warned numerous times about your problems staying within [[WP:CIVIL]]. You continue to take no responsibility for the ongoing conflict between yourself and the Kittybrewster/Astrotrain/Lauder group. Regardless of what they have done or said, you have more than played a part in fueling that fire. If you don't want to end up blocked, then keep the commentary to yourself and focus on content. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I actually think you are being far more uncivil towards me than I have ever been towards any other editor.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't think that it is uncivil to point out that your behavior has been very aggressive. I'd really like to see you treat the "monarchists" (as you call them) with more respect, whether or not you feel that they're giving the same respect to you. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] <small>[[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]]</small> 16:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Books of Interest == |
|||
Vintagekits, I was leaving a message on Logoistic’s page and noticed the An Phoblacht comments. Aran Foley is one of their Journalists. I read the remembering the past page, get some useful information from it. On that subject of “Killing versus Murder.” There is a very good book by Liz Curtis, entitled, “Ireland: The Propaganda War,” which is very well referenced, and has verifiable sources. Another great book well referenced is Michael Farrell, “Northern Ireland, The Orange State.” Just thought I’d mention them, hope you don’t mind. Regards,--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:What does it say in them a chara?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It deals with the language used during the conflict, for example how one side “murdered,” and the other side “killed.” A quote from Peter Taylor should give you an Idea. |
|||
“At the most basic level, where is the conflict taking place? Is it in Ulster? Northern Ireland? The province? The North of Ireland? Or the Six Counties? And once you’ve sorted out the names, what’s actually going on there? Is it a conflict? Is it a war? A rebellion? A revolution? A criminal conspiracy? Or a liberation struggle? Lastly, and probably most important, how do we describe those involved? Are they terrorists? Criminals? The mafia? Murderers? Guerrillas? Or freedom fighters? It depends on your perception of the conflict, and who you happen to be working for at the time.” All aspects of media and its manipulation, with detailed references to support the information. They are a must for anyone genuinely interested.--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[:Ivor Bell]]== |
|||
<s>Please stop. If you continue to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalize]] pages, {{#if:Ivor Bell|as you did {{#if:{{{diff|}}}|with [{{{diff}}} this edit]}} to [[:Ivor Bell]],|{{#if:{{{diff|}}}as you did with [{{{diff}}} this edit],}}}} you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- Template:Test3 (Third level warning) --> '''<span style="background:#000">[[User:Tbone55|<span style="color:#fff">•Tbon</span>]][[User:Tbone55/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0c0">e</span>]][[User:Tbone55/55|<span style="color:#F00">55</span>]][[User:Tbone55|<span style="color:#fff">•</span>]]</span>'''''<sup>[[User talk:Tbone55|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Tbone55|(Contribs)]] [[User:tbone55/wiki/UBS/Mine|(UBX)]] [[User:tbone55/autographbook| (autographbook)]] </sup> 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)</s> |
|||
:Explain your accusation?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Apologies! Sorry, I just got confused btween you and a vandal. '''<span style="background:#000">[[User:Tbone55|<span style="color:#fff">•Tbon</span>]][[User:Tbone55/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0c0">e</span>]][[User:Tbone55/55|<span style="color:#F00">55</span>]][[User:Tbone55|<span style="color:#fff">•</span>]]</span>'''''<sup>[[User talk:Tbone55|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Tbone55|(Contribs)]] [[User:tbone55/wiki/UBS/Mine|(UBX)]] [[User:tbone55/autographbook| (autographbook)]] </sup> 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Kittybrewster]]== |
|||
He's asked you not to leave comments on his talk page, so, unless it's important and unavoidable, please don't. It reads as provocation with the history of interaction to date. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I cant remember you asking me not to. Anyway, if you didnt want me to I wont unless as you say its "important and unavoidable". regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I've lost track, but he's left a note for you. Mine was a pre-emptive message! [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[M62 coach bombing]] and elsewhere== |
|||
Vintagekits, we have been through all this before! 1) Please mind [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:AGF]], this rule applies to edit summaries as well as comments and edits, and you failed to show it at [[Euston Station]]. 2) My use of the word terrorism in the coach bombing was sourced, don't remove it again. If you wish to counter source it with reliable verification be my guest. 3) Given your relentless quest for "NPOV", this edit by yourself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M62_coach_bombing&diff=111459804&oldid=111384172] must strike even you as biased. If you want to put such one sided statements into an article, do so with a source and in the correct place. I'm getting really tired of this.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 00:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually the opposite is true, you are the one putting in a slanted view of the issue - am I calling it an act of war carried out by freedom fighters on the agents of our oppressors? no! But you are stating it is acts of violence by terrorists which is a breach of [[WP:NPOV]].--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The bombing of a coach carrying off-duty soldiers and their families in rural Yorkshire is seen as terrorism by a large proportion of the population. I am aware this in itself is not enough to warant its inclusion, for the use of the word terrorism should be sourced. I have sourced it here and it should remain in the article. If you want to counter source it with the idea that this was not terrorism then feel free. By removing it, you are pushing a directly opposite POV.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::By British people maybe - wiki doesnt just promote the British POV - many people would state that it is actually the Britsh Army that are the terrorists. Neutralise your POV in the articles or I will. regards.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::To note, you have added an NPOV tag to the article. Please can you also add a rationale for the tag to the talk page, otherwise it is meaningless.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am aware Wiki doesn't practise British POV, and if you could find a reliable and acceptable source proclaiming the British Army as terrorists then I have no doubt it would be on Wikipedia faster than I could blink. However, the claim that the M62 coach bombing was a terrorist incident is perfectly legitimate provided it is presented in a grammatically correct manner, doesn't sound like propaganda and most importantly, '''is sourced''. I feel that the article as it currently stands conforms to this. If you have some problem with the way the word is presented then it is a simple matter for us to discuss it on the article's talk page. The word itself however is able to legitimately stay as it is properly sourced.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 00:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The article is so heavily slanted that it almost needs to be deleted and started again. If you are note prepared to modify the article to provide a NPOV instead of the Anti-republican Pro-British state that it is now then I will.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Don't be absurd. The article does not make any anti-republican comments of any kind, in fact it doesn't comment at any point on Irish Republicanism, and barely mentions the IRA. The first half of the article centres on the bombing itself and the second half on the miscarriage of justice which locked up Judith Ward. There is no hyperbole, there are no offensive adjectives and there is nothing derogatory about the IRA. It would not be possible to include anything from the IRA's point of view as they have never admitted culpability or released any comment, a fact which is stated in the article. The entire article is sourced and conforms to WP style guidelines. If you persist in attempting to delete or change it we will have to call in arbitration from somebody mutually acceptable. --[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 01:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I am happy for that to happen. I am going to remove the absurd categories and they are POV. If you wish to re-edit the "Prosecution" section then I am sure we can come to an argeement with regards the article. Balls in your court.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::OK, I have reworded the prosecution section. It was a hangover from before my recent edits (I'm not sure who wrote it, it may have been me a year ago), and I think the new wording is more acceptable to both sides. The issue of the terrorism categories is one that I'm not going to give in to you on without a very good reason. Is there an appropriate place where these things can be discussed and do you have a preferred person with which to do it?--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've commented as a 3rd party on the article talk page. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 02:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I'm going to make myself completely clear about my attitude on this subject. The issue of my own political beliefs is both private and irrelevant, because as a Wikipedia editor I should alway attempt to conform to NPOV and thus my own views should not be involved. Thus my belief that articles on IRA attacks should be provided with terrorism categories is based solely on the evidence below. I will also make clear my support of the idea that when the word terrorism is used in the main body of the article it should be placed in context and sourced (As [[[[Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism|here]]. However, with regard to categories, where this is not possible, you have claimed that the use of terrorist categories is POV and they should be removed in accordance with WP policy. I will respond by stating that this attitude maybe POV, but it is not mine. The terrorist nature of the IRA is the POV of the following (taken directly from the article on the Provisional Irish Republican Army which is well sourced and has been heavily debated): |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
The PIRA is described as a terrorist organisation by the governments of the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, the United States, [[Spain]], Germany and [[Italy]] . . . It is described as a terrorist organisation by An Garda Síochána, the police force of the Republic of Ireland, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, (PSNI). It is generally called a terrorist organisation by the following media outlets: [[The Irish Times]], the [[Irish Independent]], the [[Irish Examiner]], the [[Sunday Independent]], the [[Evening Herald]], the [[Sunday Tribune]], [[Ireland on Sunday]] and [[The Sunday Times (UK)|The Sunday Times]]. On the island of Ireland among political parties Fianna Fáil and the [[Progressive Democrats]] who together form a coalition government in the Republic of Ireland refer to it as a terrorist organisation, as do the main opposition parties [[Fine Gael]], the [[Irish Labour Party|Labour Party]], the [[Green Party/Comhaontas Glas|Green Party]], and the [[The Workers Party (Ireland)|Workers Party]], while in Northern Ireland it is described as a terrorist movement by the mainly nationalist [[Social Democratic and Labour Party]], the cross community [[Alliance Party of Northern Ireland|Alliance Party]], and from the unionist community the [[Ulster Unionist Party]], the Democratic Unionist Party and the [[Progressive Unionist Party]]. Members of the IRA are tried in the Republic in the [[Special Criminal Court]], a court set up by emergency legislation and which is described in its functioning as dealing with terrorism. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
To counter this the article then states: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
On the island of Ireland the largest political party to suggest that the IRA is not a terrorist organisation is Sinn Féin, currently the largest pro-Belfast Agreement political party in Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin is widely regarded as the political wing of the IRA, but the party insists that the two organisations are separate . . . [[Peter Mandelson]], a former Northern Ireland Secretary (a member of the British cabinet with responsibility for Northern Ireland) contrasted the activities of the IRA and those of [[Al-Qaeda]], describing the latter as "terrorists" and the former as "freedom fighters", although its supporters preferred the labels [[freedom fighter]], [[guerrilla warfare|guerrilla]] and [[volunteer]]. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
Therefore, in Wikipedia's own blanket article about the PIRA, the only quasi-reliable sources which described the IRA as anything other than a terrorist organisation during the years under discussion were Sinn Fein itself and a disgraced British politician. In the face of this overwhelmingly one sided mass of reliable and acceptable sources, to remove the terrorism categories from the articles about actions of the PIRA is to provide [[WP:Undue Weight|Undue Weight]] to the beliefs of a minority. This is my argument for the retention of the categories and I will repeat it whenever required to support this view. --[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 12:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Also, the PIRA are a designated Terrorist organisation in the UK and ROI - any crimes perpetrated were/are prosecuted under anti-terrorism legislation. [[User:Weggie|Weggie]] 13:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==New sig== |
|||
I'm gathering evidence of a certain editor's misconduct, and there's plenty of it too! <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|1916]]''</sub></font> 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Give me a shout if you need help.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Will do. You could always post about your problems at the same time as me anyway? <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|1916]]''</sub></font> 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Talk page etiquette== |
|||
Please read up on [[WP:TPG]]. You should not [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=111919054#British_Isles_template remove another editor's comments] unless there is an extreme reason for doing so. In this case, simply inserting a space would allow the "vote" to be carried on. You should avoid as much as possible any inflammatory acts. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It stated avoid the discussion was to end for we could see where we were up to, further discussion would only continue to muddy the water. I took this tactic for your solution of the Volunteer issue.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I endorse the procedure, and understand why you felt the comment was disrupting it (it was not appropriately placed), but another solution such as a sub heading for "comments" or even ; to create a bold heading would separate it off and keep the peace. |
|||
Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Murphy_%28Irish_republican%29&diff=next&oldid=111935904 this edit summary] was not very friendly. If you have a point to raise, do it civilly on the talk page, rather than the edit summary. Astrotrain had, as far as I can see, moved the page correctly to a new title. It appears he was not quite so accurate in the lead section per [[WP:MOS]], but that should not be taken as disruptive, if it was a [[WP:AGF|good faith]] edit. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:WHat was his reason for removing Slabs name in Irish?? Blatant provocation imo.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Please [[WP:AGF|AGF]] unless you can prove otherwise and are supported by 3rd parties, in which case continued behaviour can be addressed in an appropriate way. Otherwise your conduct will be seen as at fault. It is better to leave a note to explain to the editor what they have done wrong and quote appropriate policy or guidelines, per [[WP:MOS]] for example. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::In case you havent noticed he has stop replying to my messages so its like talking to the wall.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 12:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::If there's a disputed edit and you leave a post on the talk page which the other editor does not answer, they are at fault. But check it's not just an oversight, if necessary by pointing them to the article talk page with a note on their user talk page. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 01:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Vintage=== |
|||
Thanks for the information. Cheers. ([[User:Roaster2008|Roaster2008]] 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
== [[WP:CIVIL]], etc. == |
|||
Please try to remain calm and cool when in disputes with other editors. In reviewing your edit history with regards to [[User:Roaster2008]], it's clear that you're only escalating the situation. You can use templated messages (in this case, {{tl|nn-warn}} and {{tl|drmspeedy}} would work) to help keep things from getting out of hand. -- [[User:Merope|Merope]] 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Cheers, I didnt know those tags, I got a little uncivil because he has been vandalising my talk page. Additonally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Severe&oldid=112079847 see this edit]--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Northern Ireland flag == |
|||
Hi. I appreciate that you want to keep the vote looking plain and simple. However, my vote comes with a proviso. I'd like the text to remain in place. Thanks. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">[[User:Setanta747|Mal]]</span> 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Fair enough, can you trim it down to ''"'''A''' - unless C becomes a reality. If D gets a majority, then B will have to be put in place."'' Because it conveys your message and is less wordy, I just fear that your post will encourage other to discuss. regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Ireland&diff=112148515&oldid=112113878 see what I mean]--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== My incident at [[WP:AN/I]] == |
|||
Even though my incident is solved, just be a bit more careful when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=112064333 adding new incidents to the bottom of the page], thanks. I was wondering where this went. :( <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">[[User:x42bn6|<span style="font-weight: bold;">x42bn6</span>]] [[User_talk:x42bn6|Talk]]</span> 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Re: Recent comment on flag debate == |
|||
::I note the SPI on [[User:MFIreland|MFIreland]] being suspected as a sock, has been closed per lack of 'diff's for evidence. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Moved as requested. Sorry about that. [[User:MartinRobinson|Martin]] 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::If by mentioning socking you intend to imply that the [[WP:OFFER|standard offer]] applies, I wish you would just say so. The conversation at ANI is not about socking, and he was not blocked for socking. The SPI case did not find evidence of socking. Fine. I'm willing to believe that, it doesn't change my position one bit as I wasn't previously aware of it anyway. The offer is just a suggested course of action, it does not apply in every case. I am a big fan of it myself but I don't believe this is a situation where it should be invoked. Even if it was VK continues to blame others for his own blocking, showing no signs of intending to change his behavior. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::No probs and thanks, its just that we are trying to find if there is a consensus and one bit of chat will just lead to this excersise being rendered useless.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
VK, I recommend you admit responsibility for your own indef block. If you don't? well you see the trend at ANI. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:And the few users who do support unblocking you have indicated a rather elaborate set of restrictions, including a topic ban from all articles related to Irish or British politics and all articles related to The Troubles, and supervision by a mentor that will not be chosen by you. In the interest of moving the conversation forward it seems appropriate to ask if you would even agree to such restrictions as a condition of being unblocked. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Indeed, stick with the Boxing articles. Leave the political stuff to others. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
This editor need to be unblocked. his opponoents, who have behaved in far worse fashion, have been unblocked. What is the difference with VK? Please explain that to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Vkits; I am a bit puzzled as to how you decide which version of contested text (re infobox flag NI) gets to stay put while the issue is debated? Do votes count or not? If this vote can be ignored then surely I can ignore the vote on the RoI title that I find unacceptable and wrong? So let's call the article "Ireland" while we debate it? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 00:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:[[WP:NOTTHEM]]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 11:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:No one is ignoring anything, we must give this time for everyone to have their say - how many of the sixteen or so people involved in the discussion have shown their preference so far?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Don't quote stupid, ridiculous essays and links to me! Explain why this is acceptable [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Counter-revolutionary#Unblock] and an unblock of Vk is not? Are you even aware of the facts? I very nuch doubt it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:If "opponents" have "behaved in far worse fashion" then that is an argument to block or chastise them, not to unblock VK. I will support appropriate measures against "opposing" editors to minimize disruption when those are proven with diffs. Let's address that on ANI as an independent issue. This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing match. We don't need to find sparring partners. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<span style="color:#595454">Will Beback</span>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<span style="color:#C0C0C0">talk</span>]] </b> 11:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
OK. But in the meantime let's have the version Padraig put up a week ago (which was reverted immediately by Sony on the basis of.....remarkably little! (I have sworn off this type of issue but was dragged back into it....did you know that [[Ballyroan]], [[County Laois]] has an [[Angela Delaney]] sculpture? It was paid for by the Ballyroan Waste Water One Percent for Art Scheme. Not many people know that. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]]) |
|||
::*Get hold of Alison then, and ask her for some explanations of her behaviour here, I am enjoying a pleasant and relaxed holiday, to which I am hurriedly returning, and leaving the sleezy mire of hypocrisy which I have found here while looking in briefly. Disgraceful and disgusting exhibition of double standards. I have never seen such gross hyppocrisy from so called admins here before. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Um, is "hypocrisy" aimed at me? You realise I had no involvement with the unblock of Counter-revolutionary? Also, I think this is another instance where supporters of an editor vocally and even aggressively trying to defend them in their absence is, if anything, counter-productive. If VK makes a serious unblock request (which you're welcome to help him formulate), ''that'' would merit lengthy discussion. Discussing the now-declined request this much merely prejudices any future request. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Eh, it's Giacomo. Everything he disagrees with is proof of Wikipedia's moral decline & hypocrisy. Best to just ignore him. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You know what would be totally awesome? If we used Vintagekits' talk page to talk to and about Vintagekits, and not each other! Vintagekits, there are three audiences that will be reviewing your block request. People who know you and are inclined to help you out, people who know you and are disinclined to help you out, and people who don't know you at all. If you even appear to place any of the blame for your block on someone else's shoulders, that last group will not help you. Its just the way it is around here.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 18:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:With unblock requests worded like the one under discussion here, standard procedure is to decline the request. If he's serious about being unblocked, he is free to submit a properly-worded unblock request. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*Far from ignoring the multitude of reason for my various blocks I am fully aware of them and hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. My indefinate block was ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept. When the remainder of the world awoke they were basically told it was too late. |
|||
*Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. |
|||
*Do I understand what I have been blocked for, yes. But I also understand that there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished and many have shown their faces here already. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. |
|||
*will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion is enough to prove what I have said above is true. |
|||
*will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. |
|||
p.s. apologies for the shoddy original unblock request, one would think that with all my experience that I would know what the correct procedure was, however I am obviously out of practice.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Well that sounds a little more like an unblock request, though you should probably address the old [[User talk:Vintagekits/terms]] specifically since that came up in the recent ANI discussion. When you're ready, use the appropriate unblock request template, and someone should then start a new thread on [[WP:AN]]. Unfortunately the starting of an ANI discussion in relation to your recent request may have poisoned the well a bit, so you may have to work extra hard to convince people to have you back. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:A friendly word of advice: In such an unblock request, don't say ''anything'' about other editors. It will, ''for sure'', result in an "unblock declined". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I think what's being sought, is an apology for being un-civil (the colour languages on talkpages) & prior to your indef-block, the usage of socks. Plus a promise to do neither again. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Bloody Sunday== |
|||
As you are well aware, adding that the soldiers "murdered" people into the events of the day [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloody_Sunday_%281972%29&diff=112217257&oldid=112214331] is inflammatory and and bad wiki-ettiquete; you have argued strongly on several other pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sir_Norman_Stronge%2C_8th_Baronet] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M62_coach_bombing] that words which violate your interpretation of POV should not be allowed, and editors have generally worked to find a compromise. You have also stated that CAIN is an authorative source for which word should be used (BTW, your source is not CAIN, its the title of a report of unknown content in the CAIN bibliography) in the actual CAIN article the word murder is only used in a quote [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/sum.htm], which is already in the WP article. The main descriptive word in tha CAIN piece is "killed". I'm not going to change it because I have no desire for an edit war (although I'm sure someone else will), but I suggest you try to tone down inflammatory edits like this if you want to be taken more seriously, beacause behaviour like that seems a little hypocritical.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 02:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The second time VK was blocked for incivility, back in February 2007, he solemnly promised to "avoid comments that even could come close to being perceived as attacks or incivility".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=prev&oldid=109541190] He's been blocked 20 times for personal attacks since then, not to mention the edit warring blocks. Following many of those blocks he's promised to reform. But he is who he is, and at this point it'd be foolish to assume he's capable of change, no matter how sincere his promises may be. See [[The Scorpion and the Frog]]. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<span style="color:#595454">Will Beback</span>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<span style="color:#C0C0C0">talk</span>]] </b> 08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Come off it....are you saying the soldiers DIDN'T murder those people? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::Why the fuck should VK apologise for the "usage of socks"? When was the last time he socked? It certainly wasn't anything to do with his last block was it? VK has certainly got it half right though, you only have to look at the history of the now disgraced admin who blocked him last time, who clearly had it in for VK to such an extent that he was busy gathering villagers with pitchforks to ban VK while ignoring that the article that caused the problems had a BLP violation in that his death was completely unsourced! And isn't it funny how two things I've taken to ANI recently have had little to no input, the no input being an IP editor who violates BLP with virtually every single edit they make. But VK posts an unblock on what should be a quiet day of the year and people are there in the blink of an eye, it would seem keeping VK off Wikipedia is far more important than upholing BLP round here... <span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">2 lines of K</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></span> 13:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Its completely irrelevant what I think. My point is that it is a POV that the soldiers murdered the people (a POV which is well representend and referenced in the article, but still only a POV as there were no murder convictions for the event), but to place a word like that in the main descriptive body of the text is both deliberately inflammatory and undermines Vintagekits' own efforts on other pages to remove words he views as POV. For example at the [[M62 coach bombing]], which Vintagekits' himself helped to shape and discussed throughly, the word murder is never used and the word terrorism only in a sourced context in the reaction section.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 13:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Why should he? Well, how badly does he want to edit? Editing here is a privilege, not a right. And blaming others for getting blocked will accomplish nothing, so I'm trying to imagine how your comments are likely to help the blockee in this case. As to the other items you mention, I'll take a look, but IP's can't be given lengthy blocks except in limited circumstances. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh just grovel to them VK, crawl on your hands and knees shouting "''I'm nout but a thick bog peasant, please kind sirs let me edit, I'll be ever so good and brown my nose''" I rather think that is what is required. Were you pretending to be a fine upstanding English gentleman, then of course you would be aplauded and welcomed back, even if you had been "abusing multiple accounts and using threatening behaviour" all behaviour seemingly taught on the playing fields of Eton. It looks to me like you are perceived to be the wrong nationality and type. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::How badly does he want to edit? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*About as badly as [[User:Counter-revolutionary]], one of his old prime-agressors, who has just been welomed back after a two year block for all forms of deporable behaviour. It seems there is one rule for the Brits and one for the Irish. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*Yeh, a lot of us Yanks have it in for the Irish while we love the British (guess which one we fought two wars against). ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh I had no idea, that decisions solely up to you "Yanks." I thought this was an internationally collaborative project. Silly me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::And how does a baseless accusation of anti-Irish bias aid in that collaboration? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*The unblock of the other user looks questionable, and you're free to follow the guy's edits and see if he misbehaves, and then take it to the admins. None of that has anything to do with O'Vintagekits, though. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*I support Vintagekits return to productive contributing. Under some restrictions perhaps for a couple of months to help him settle back in and on a short rope as regards rudeness to other contributors, all he has to do is to be polite or be blocked again. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*That seems fair, provided he stops playing the "look what you made me do" game. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
To focus on socking is a red herring. Yes, Vk has socked before—persistently—but there is nothing to suggest he has done so during the length on this block, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Expecting (or demanding) an apology for socking is both pointless and punitive. Giano has a point beneath the nationalist spin: every block should be reviewed in the context of the reasons for the block, not other sundry past crimes. |
|||
Vk seems to have addressed the reasons for his block on the second attempt. But, in my opinion, a major concern remains: denial of responsibility ("''The actually block was malicious in the first place''", "''there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished''"). If you don't demonstrate that you appreciate ''why'' your actions led to a block (and instead blame the actions of others) its unlikely you can make the judgments required to avoid making the same comments in future. My reading of both requests is that Vk believes he was blocked unfairly by a conspiracy of others. Only if the community accepts this should he be unblocked. [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Your response highlights a very serious problem for En Wiki when dealing with all manner of rebellions and reactions to Western Imperialism (which goes well beyond NI issues). The issue is too big to discuss here, but it is the excessive weight given to Western Establishment '''legalism''' by the Wiki establishment, even when, as in occupation situations, such 'legality' is simply part of the propaganda war. |
|||
:::::*I dont really want to focus on this as it is exactly the type of negativity that I want to avoid but do you agree that there are a band (orcastrated or not) who would not wish to see my return to wiki no matter what I said. Lets not kid ourselves here eh!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
For example; you seem to imply that without a (British) Court conviction, murder by British soldiers cannot be described as such. This sounds very like the US thinking in Iraq and various other places. |
|||
:::::: I expect there are editors that consider your bridges well and truly burnt, and no matter what you say now will be unlikely to support your unblocking. But you might consider ''why'' some people feel that way (hint: the 31 prior blocks may have something to do with it) and instead try to convince those who are willing to give you another chance that you know how to avoid reaching 32. [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 21:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Maybe we should NEVER use the word 'murder' as it is a loaded term? Or only qualified versions such as "X was convicted of murder"; Does that imply X killed anyone? "No, only that a Court controlled by a Government said he did". "Soldier Y was found innocent of murder"; Does that mean Y didn't kill someone? "No, only that a Court controlled by a Government said he was". ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 05:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:Please study [[WP:ATT]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. However, you are correct that the effect of this is to give weight to the status quo, at least as represented by official bodies and major media outlets. If you're not happy with that, then you must change the policy, failing which it has to be applied. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 05:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Thank you Rockpocket, I think we will both agree that VK was a thorn in many sides and I will conceed that when in drink he could be objectionable. However, as he says "''Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures.''" I know that his RL responsibilities have increased and with them his sense of responsibility. Does one punish the adult for the sins of the child? returning to that punishment, the reasons many were unhapy with his block was becase it was most defiitely as VK says hurriedly "ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept." I have never before or since seen such a hurried indeff, in one time zone. Regardless of if you like it or not, VK was indeffed while Ireland was asleep. Now that his old adversaris are all unblocked, '''My view is that comon justice demands the lifting of this block'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Not too happy with that. But I do find that "polices must be applied" a moveable feast when it comes to specific items. So I will make my decisions on a case by case basis. I prefer TRUTH over POLICY every time. After all, what is the value of a Wiki that is just a compendium of Government lies?! ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::: But irrespective of whether the indef was hurried through or not, the fact remains that there was a good reason the initial block was placed. Few, if any, of the editors who argued against the nature of the indef took issue with that. Vk-with-added-responsibilities said he would be happy to answer queries. So I have four before offering an opinion on the merits of his request. |
|||
::::#Do you think it is acceptable to refer to another editor, completely unprovoked, as a "fucking arsehole" or an "ego maniac"? |
|||
::::#Should editors who repeatedly or persistently use bilious language in personal attacks or in reference to other editors be welcome in our community? |
|||
::::#Pursuant to your answer above, why? |
|||
::::#If you were unblocked and used such language again in reference to another editor, should this block be immediately reinstated? |
|||
:::: Thanks, [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==RfC== |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Astrotrain]]. Thanks. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thats some serious work a chara.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. I had to leave out the whole flag dispute because I basically don't have a clue about who's actually right and wrong in that situation, but there's plenty to be going on with isn't there? <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::An understatement if eer there was one.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Have you checked your emails? <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Havent been able to access my email address for a while, sorry.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::In consort? Oh the irony! <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Just to be clear: I support having Vk's indef block lifted, therefore I aint requesting anything from VK in his unblock request. I merely observed about the kind of unblock request he'll need, to get the community to support his unblock. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Check your email please. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Ignore the first one, I'm tired and cocked up. The second one is right. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 00:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
You're doing fine Vk. Remaining patient, no foul language usage, no socking. Such an approach helps & I believe at some point in 2011, you'll be unblocked. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===Kittybrewster=== |
|||
No problem there - apart from the fact the comment is in the wrong place by the looks of it. In an RfC particularly there will be blunt views, as long as they are not unrestrained personal attacks in an abusive manner. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:more of the usual accusations without diffs or proof. This editor seems to have catre blanche when it comes to this.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::RfC is a special case. Lack of proof or diffs weakens any statement considerably. Not exactly carte blanche - he has been blocked before. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 04:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Assertion of Notability== |
|||
Biographies |
|||
The following types of military figures are always notable: |
|||
Recipients of a country's highest military decoration. |
|||
People who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat. [Weggie note - i.e. a general] |
|||
Holders of top-level command positions (e.g. Chief of the General Staff). |
|||
People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works. |
|||
If a military figure does not meet any of the above, but has non-trivial mention in one or more published secondary works (family history and genealogies excluded), they are probably notable. (unsigned comment by Weggie) |
|||
:This does not mean a general is automatically notable, if anything it shows that they are not.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. |
|||
==[[User talk:Kittybrewster]]== |
|||
Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. |
|||
Rd. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kittybrewster&curid=3477071&diff=112553778&oldid=112551367 this exchange:] if it is a comment on an edit in an article, then please put it on the article talk page. That is what article talk pages are for. Other editors are then able to participate. Kittybrewster has asked you not to post on his talk page, so you should not unless it is unavoidable. There is a tension between you, and he clearly finds it irritating. The next time you do something like this, I will regard it as deliberately provocative. Complaints about him - post to me, MrDarcy or a noticeboard. Article comments or questions, post on article talk page, and there's no need to personalise it by commenting on the editor: stick to the nature of the edit. If no one comments after at least 24 hours, then you can regard yourself as having some clearance for your viewpoint. I can't see any reason why you need now to post on his page. If there is one, let me know. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editor in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. |
|||
:Kitty does not own his talk page, I had a direct question about this edit on an article, so it should be asked on their talk page. It comes as no surprise to be that you attack the editor who has had the wrong done to them instead of pretecting them. What is the point of only going to ask you to intervene if you never to anything. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. |
|||
::I did do something. It just wasn't what you wanted me to do. If you have a question about an edit on an article, that is what the article talk page is for. This also allows other editors to participate. Hey, I've just said that a few lines earlier. I am not attacking you. I am advising and warning you. No one owns their user or talk page, but it is generally accepted that users do have some rights to conduct certain matters regarding them, one being to ask users to not post to them, unless it is unavoidable. You've been clearly asked not to post, so don't. It will just be provocative. I did protect the editor who had the wrong done to them. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them.|decline=At this point, there's no way for you to be unblocked without a community consensus at AN or ANI (or appeal to BASC). Trouble is that starting such a thread so soon after the last one is unlikely to accomplish much. Consensus can change, but rarely does it overnight. My best advice would be to either wait a few months and try for return per [[WP:OFFER]] or to email BASC. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</span>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]] 03:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
:::If you think that ignoring simply questions and archiving questions to avoid answering them is acceptable behaviour then I think your credability is taking a nose dive.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*Here's the problem: At the recent ANI discussion, most users were opposed to you being unblocked. The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor. I asked above if you would be willing to agree to these conditions and I don't see an answer anywhere. You have a few more supporters here now, but another discussion will be warranted if we are to seriously consider unblocking you. I don't see any point to initiating said discussion until you indicate whether or not you would be willing to accept such restrictions. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::It's quite apparent (at the moment) that if/when Vk is unblocked, another ANI community review will occur. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|side conversation}} |
|||
::::[[WP:COOL]], I find [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] to act fairly. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::the problem with that is, were similar restrictions imposed on his adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks - are you seeking to bias the Troubles debates and pages? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I( am cool a chara, however, Ty has struck up a nice little email relationship with Kitty recently and now appears to be blind to blatant uncivil behaviour that would see me recieving a block if I carried out the same behaviour. See [[User_talk:Tyrenius#Kittybrewster|here]] for further detail. And then dares to call my simple question "deliberately provocative" - I would say that archiving an unanswered direct question "deliberately provocative".--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
What nonsense. Anyone can email anyone else. You seem to be implying that has affected my behaviour. You have not a clue what any email was about. I'm often emailed by editors and admins. But seeing as you are so curious, it was a simple technical enquiry. As far as your "see here" goes, I've already dealt with that. It was your continuing posts on Kitty's talk page. Users have a fair bit of latitude on their user and talk pages. You have completely distorted what I said. I did not say your simple question was deliberately provocative. I said if you continue to make such posts on his talk page in the future having been asked by him not to and advised by me not to, then it will indeed be provocative, unless there is a very good reason. Talking about an article is not a good reason. That's what article talk pages are for. I don't recall every blocking you. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Giano, your backhanded accusation of bad faith is really not going to help the situation. I'm sure you are aware of [[WP:NOTTHEM]]. I'm not saying VK has to agree to these terms, I'm saying he should answer the querstion of whether he would be willing to agree to them or not. If the answer is no, then we know before re-starting the discussion that that particular option is off the table. That's all, there is no conspiracy, just a simple request for clarification of a point that has already come up in these discussions. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Thanks== |
|||
:::*Please don't quote these ridiculous [[WP-THINGS]] to me because I never read them as they are usually written by Admins atemptimg to justify their own bad behaviour. I can assure you I meant nothing "backhanded," in fact, my meaning was quite obvious. You have allowed back his adversaries (who committed worse "crimes") without a murmer of dissent; now, just get on and unblock VK who has, unlike them, promised to mend his ways. It's begining to look like a huge bias. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I haven't personally allowed anyone back in. I don't even know who you are talking about and I don't care to find out either. We are discussing VKs possible unblock. Some other user being unblocked by some other admin is a separate matter, and has abcolutely nothing to do with the simple question I am asking for an answer to. This bias you speak of, as it applies to me anyway, is purely a product of your imagination. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If you have not bothered to avail yourself of the facts pertenent to this case perhaps you sould not be commenting here at all. Such ignorance is worryingly common amongst Admins keen to have their names seen here, there and everywhere. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have to wonder, at this point, if Giaco is actually trying to sabotage VK's attempt to get unblocked. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
You can't endorse it as well though, so you'll need to remove that. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Your wonderings are of very little value. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{small|My comments are every bit as valuable as yours. But thanks for the non-denial denial :) ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
::::::This entire conversation is of little value at this point, all I wanted was a simple yes or no answer to a question, and you have decided to drag imaginary nationalist conspiracies into it. I don't care one bit if VK is Irish, English, Iranian, Australian, Navajo, Greek, Albanian, etc. I'll have you know I'm half Irish Catholic myself, so if anything I would be more inclined to be biased in his favor. Now, if we could just let this non-issue alone and give VK a chance to answer the question with either a yes or a no that would be ''super''. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: Giano - who are these ''"adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks"'' because I'm really not seeing them? I hope that's not a reference to Counter-rev, as he was 1) neither Sussexman nor David Lauder, both of whom are still well and truly blocked and 2) was never as abusive as VintageKits was in his prime. See my talk page where I went over that already during the week - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 10:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*I see, so WJBscribe was lying/grossly exagerating here: "''19:26, 1 July 2008 WJBscribe (talk | contribs) blocked Counter-revolutionary (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (abusing multiple accounts, threatening behaviour)''" and that well known upstanding paragon of Wiki virtue Rlevse (renamed as Vanquished on VK's block log) was mreley upholding the sacred Wiki after the disgraceful night of dirty knives when North America hurriedly sent VK packing while Ireland slept - I hope you are proud of that in North America! One only has to look at the names on his block log [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AVintagekits] to see what was happenng a combination of monumantal and engineered ignorance. You Alison, released Counter-revolutionary from his cage in time for the 2010 election after asking for few if any reasurrances of futire behaviour. Yet, when VK wants similarly releasing all hell breaks loose as the drones march out to comment, clearly (as Beeblebrox admits) with mot a clue about that which they are comenting on. I find this all very odd indeed. I am delighted that VK states he is a reformed charactor and hope he has the chance to prove that - a great pity you did not require similar assurances from CR. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please cease posting comments to this thread in the recent nationalist-battleground and what-about-that-guy vein. You clearly support VK's unblock, but your efforts are counterproductive to that aim and you seem unable to recognise that (as I said before, if you have current issues with other editors, then pursue [[WP:DR|DR]] as appropriate). My expectation is that VK will address the issue of whether he would accept the previous unblock terms and why they would work this time (with the hope that successfully respecting them would later give some chance of them being lifted) or else make the best case he can why he should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread, where I don't rate his chances in the near future, but with a good enough effort, who knows. At any rate, there's no other way back, and you're not helping - quite the opposite. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 13:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Block== |
|||
::::*I'm sure you all hate haveing the nationalistic overtones of this debate brought out into the open, but there are no other conclusions one can draw? Bad behaviour hapened on both sides, yet only one side continues to be punished - or have you just unblocked VK? Oh and will you all please stop quoting these stupid [[WP-things]] at me, all written by yourselves. Either behave fairly or be quite yourself. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{block|violating [[WP:NPA]]. This is particularly egregious as you are fully aware of editing tensions with this user, who was [[User_talk:Astrotrain#Warning|himself blocked]] after your complaint when he said the same thing about you. You have been given plenty of warnings about this whole situation. You therefore have no excuse. The block is for 24 hours. Please proceed more prudently in future.}} Your edit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celtic_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=112935349] [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Any more of this nonsense and I'll page ban you from here, mostly for VK's benefit but also for your own. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The mildest of "attacks" and similar to what you ignored against me it the past days. I cant be arsed arguing with you over this as you have made up your mind. Astrotrain was deliberately provoking me by try to get the word British into the Celtic article - which he being a Scottish editor knows would wind up anyone with connections to Celtic. If you look at the edit history he has had that edit taken out before - you fell for it - well done. I need a break from this sess pit of POV anyway so thanks. I have just noticed that [[User:Mais oui!]], has remove the term British - once again, nice of you to bite.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 10:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*{{small|Well, he's still blocked. Your reverse-psychology strategy worked. :) ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Celtic and that British reference== |
|||
Vintagekits, I've reinserted 'first British...' in the Celtic FC, History of Celtic Fc and Lisbon Lions articles - see the reasos given here - [[Talk:Celtic_F.C.#First_British_.2F_Northern_European_Club_to_win_the_European_Cup]]. I don't agree that this "would wind up anyone with connections to Celtic" - see Celtic's own history page here - http://www.celticfc.net/aboutus/inbrief.aspx. Let me know what you think. [[User:Hippo43|Hippo43]] 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I have removed in again, its a redundant statement. They statement is clarified and there is no need to add British. regards |
|||
* - the question to Vintagekits .... |
|||
==That apology== |
|||
The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor...Would you be willing to accept such a condition? I am unsure but I imagine such a condition would not be indefinite but perhaps for say six months or until the community could see you moving forward in a collaborative manner and a measure of trust and support was there to lift the restriction.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Remember the apology I said you'd get if I said it turned out you weren't Bluegold? Well, unless you're exceedingly devious, and can type with both hands, and have two PCs, I think that there's pretty strong evidence that you aren't connected to Bluegold. So, <u>I was quite wrong in claiming that you were a sockpuppet of Bluegold, and I withdraw the accusation.</u> I hope you'll accept my apology. Cheers, [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 11:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree - address that, VK, or else make the best case you can why you should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread and see where we stand. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:No problem.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 12:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::*that conditionality wouldnt annoy me to be honest. I think people will be surprised with how I handle my self from now on so I would have no objection to a restriction like that.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::IMHO, an AN or ANI report/thread shouldn't be opened until Vk's unblocked. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::VK shouldn't be unblocked until the community has agreed to removal of the effective community ban. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oops, I forgot, it was a community ban. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Bringing it up again at ANI could result in disappointment for VK, but could also be the fair thing to do, as the worst the group is likely to do is say "No" again. Just make sure you-know-who doesn't put his oar in and gum up the works for VK. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*I find it fairly hard to take this process serious, especially considering the CR episode. My first unblock request was largely rejeced out oof hand because I didnt explain myself and then I did in the second and it was rejected because it was "too soon". Whats a guy gotta do?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Be patienet. Remember, there's alot of editors out there, who still don't trust you & aren't quick to forgive your past behaviour. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Make a third one. You've explained yourself better, and as it seems you're willing to accept the terms, it seems reasonable to now discuss an unblock at AN. I think the "too soon" issue may have been because at that point you hadn't addressed the terms, and now you have I wouldn't expect it to happen again. (And if it does, I'm happy to start an AN thread anyway.) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 17:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::As per the above, you have explained your position and alluded to your understanding of why you were restricted and you have offered and accepted the possible restrictions such as mentor and topic restriction, so moving forward and with this in mind your offer and request is worth presenting to the community, although I am sure you know there is no guarantee, if you are serious I suggest you present the new situation in an unblock template for community consideration. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Disclosure; I'm half Irish, so maybe I empathize a bit too much, but I suggest you try again right away(apppears to me you have a bit of positive momentum right now) and if anybody who might be Christian throws up the "31 blocks" objection, just remind them, especially at this time of year, that 31 is not [[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:21-23&version=KJV 490]]. [[User:Mr.grantevans2|Mr.Grantevans2]] ([[User talk:Mr.grantevans2|talk]]) 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== |
==Unblock Request - Take III== |
||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editors in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project? Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am here for. Will I disagree with people? I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues which is the main thing. That is about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. | decline=Enough si enough. I have revoked your access to this talk page, please direct any further appeals to the Arbitration Committee via their Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the community is not receptive to unblocking you. Any unblock at this point will have to come from the Committee. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)}} |
|||
*You might want to fix the spelling errors and also clarify the "not...not" statement. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Chuck in a bit about your agreement to being sanctioned from the British & Irish political areas of Wikipedia. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for that Vintagekits. I have a lot of ref'ed information nearly ready for this page. Regards--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Bit disappointing, VK - you just copied and pasted Take II without even reading carefully enough to find obvious spelling mistakes, never mind address the points discussed after Take II. This might easily look a bit cavalier to some, which seems silly when you're trying to convince people. Try and fix the issues mentioned before anything else happens. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 14:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==New pages== |
|||
:::'Cavalier' - do you agree with the rationale behind the closing of 'Take II'. By the way, my spelling is always terrible. It always has been, it always will be. If you find that offensive then I can only apologies. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, that response robs me of any remaining desire to help you. I wash my hands of this. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I almost closed this one out of hand, thinking it a duplicate of the previous one. Which it is... [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::What more would you like to see in this request?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::What do you think are the reasons you got into trouble here? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Many because I was reeled in by dishonest people. What about you?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What were you blocked for? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It's all set about in my block log and the above discussions.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Do YOU understand what you were blocked for? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 19:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Now now KB, have a bit of manners when you are on my talkpage. Its not like you have showered yourself in glory when you have been here before. I'll answer your question with a question. Have you read my unblock request?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I have. And I don't believe your reasons for requesting an unblock. You were on a final final chance and you blew it out of the water. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't think you realise Kittybrewster, that it is your friends who have largley caused the problem which VK has had. However, I'm sure all concerned are noticing, that VK is behaving with maturity and gravitas and not rising to your bait, so perhaps a little introspection would be beneficial for you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Indeed you are right; I don't realise that my friends (whatever that means) have largely caused VK's problem. Nor do I think VK has begun to make clear that he is responsible. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Whatever makes you happy Kittybrewster can only be applauded. However, I don't think you will find than VK or indeed anyone other eager to respond to yout trolling here. Good evening. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I was about ready to read yet another attempt by Giaco to sabotage VK's comeback attempt, but VK seems to have done a good job sabotaging ''himself'' this time. I can only conclude that he really, really does ''not'' want to edit on wikipedia. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ |
|||
Folks, this bickering is pointless. Whatever anyone's view of the unblock request, it's going to need an ANI discussion to consider it, and a finger-pointing exercise here does not nothing to assist anyone. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Make sure you add <nowiki>{{WP:IR}}</nowiki> to the talk pages of anything new you create please, that way they get added to the project category. Thanks. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I was ready to log a "support unblock", but it's clear he's not serious, so forget it. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Will do.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Just a courtesy notice that I have asked at [[WP:AN]] for a previously uninvolved admin to come deal with this, it has obviously dragged on far too long. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Userpage == |
||
The userpage should be changed to ''indef block'', as that's what VK's status currently is. He's certainly not retired. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I've given it a good going over. I've removed the socialist and anarchist parts pending a source as they are contradictory, plus they didn't look right where they were once I moved Irish Republican into the lead. Let me know what you think. Thanks. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:True though that may be, is it ''really'' that big of a deal? Anyone can see from this page that the "retirement" was not voluntary. In short you are correct but it is hardly the most pressing issue here. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 02:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for that, also I think he was an Anarchist firstly--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It's just illogical to keep thate ''retirement'' tag, when that's not the situation. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I'll check my books over the next couple of days, when it can be sourced I'll put it back in...if I can figure out where the best place is anyway. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree completely. I just don't see it as a pressing problem. There has already been a slo-mo edit war over this for over a year, and it's still there. There are things that are worth fighting for and things that are not. I suggest this falls into the "not" category. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I changed it to indefblocked yesterday, especially since consensus was formed at AN/I that he's blocked indefinitely, but I was reverted out of hand by his friend. As usual, on Wikipedia, it's not about what you do but who you know. - [[User:Burpelson AFB|Burpelson AFB]] [[User talk:Burpelson AFB|✈]] 14:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's not worth edit-warring over. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Nothing ever is.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
*I'm sorry you feel you have been treated unfairly, there have been several community discussions wherein a clear consensus was established that you should remain blocked. Emailing me as if this was all my doing isn't going to change that one bit. You may contact [[WP:BASC]] if you want to appeal this any further, I'd appreciate it if you did not email me any further regarding this as I couldn't override the community's decision even if I wanted to. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg == |
|||
==Sir Norman Stronge photo== |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning.svg|32px|left]] |
|||
*<s> In response to the following edit description regarding a photograph of Sir Norman Stronge, ''"will be looking into the fair use of this image - where was it obtained from. I have another picture of him but I am not sure it could ever be used on here"'', you show yourself to be offensive, crass, and lacking in a common sense of taste and decency. --[[User:Counter-revolutionary|Counter-revolutionary]] 14:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)</s>::what are you talking about, I have a photo of him from An P showing him in "all his regal garb" - however, it is copyrighted so cannot be used on here. I consider this another direct personal attack for you, for which you will be reported.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg]]'''. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|fair use]], but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|first non-free content criterion]] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please: |
|||
:::Righto. If you have a picture of Sir Norman, "in regal garb", perhaps you could contact the copyright owner in an attempt to gain permission. I presume you know who owns the copyright as you know it's copyrighted. --[[User:Counter-revolutionary|Counter-revolutionary]] 15:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Please let's not try and cause problems when there aren't any, a little of of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] wouldn't go amiss. The picture is likely to be permissible under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]], especially if it shows him in his garb and he is deceased so a free version cannot be created. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, I now agree.--[[User:Counter-revolutionary|Counter-revolutionary]] 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Is that your idea of an apology for that digusting outbrust - I am getting pretty sick of this to be honest!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::My comment, directly before this, was an attempt at resolution. I have striked through the initial statement.--[[User:Counter-revolutionary|Counter-revolutionary]] 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Still no apology however!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 11:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::The note on my talk page regarding this did not make any reference to an apology, I have retracted the statement.--[[User:Counter-revolutionary|Counter-revolutionary]] 11:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Oh, so you just struck the comment out because you want to avoid and block and not because you were bang out of order!?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 11:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I have retracted the comment, it would be good to move on.--[[User:Counter-revolutionary|Counter-revolutionary]] 11:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Oho, do stop sniping. The comment has been retracted - end of subject. Vk might now like to answe rONiH's point about the photograph. What is the source? - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 11:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I am not sniping and consider that a breach of [[WP:CIVIL]] if not a breach of [[WP:NPA]] - you have made massive deal about not wanting me to go on your talk page and I been asked by Tyrenius to stay off your talk page to keep the peace but you still consider that you have carte blanche to come on MY talk and have a go at me AND on a subject that has nothing to do you with. If you dont want me on your talk page then you should stay off mine, I will be also reporting you for the breach of policy and provoking me by coming on my talk page.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Fine; you go ahead and report me in the usual way. My concern here is not to attribute fault, blame, revenge or punishmet but to bring everybody back to the central issue which is of consequence - namely improving the Norman Stronge article. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 12:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Righto, I ''apologise''. I was not aware Wikipedia was a moral playground but, in the interests of allowing constructive comment to resume, and given I have already retracted my comment, that is what I shall say as close. |
|||
# Go to [[:File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg|the media description page]] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original replaceable fair use template'''. |
|||
== Sir Bernard Waley-Cohen == |
|||
# On [[File talk:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg|the image discussion page]], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. |
|||
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license]], or by taking a picture of it yourself. |
|||
I have added three references, from three different and independent sources, that demonstrate Sir Bernard's notability. Also, I believe that all Lord Mayors of London are intrinsicaly notable.--[[User:Newport|Newport]] 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I dont believe they are, its any honorary title, the [[Mayor of London]] is automatically notable but not the [[Lord Mayor of London]]. Waley-Cohen MAY achieve notability through his other work, I would add the details of the orb into the article as its a poor article at the moment. regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target=Vintagekits&namespace=6}} this link]</span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|non-free content policy]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==My block for 3RR??== |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I think you will find that I have not broken the 3RR, I have ONE edit and THREE reverts - its is Kitty that has broken the 3rr. I tried on numerous occasions to discuss this with Kitty and infact stopped reverting his edits as he was not listening to me. Can you please check the edit history again and you will see that I had ONE edit - they were not all reverts - Yamla - can you please look at the timeline I have provided below for the details of how I did stop the edit war and tried to discuss. thank you|decline=You misunderstand 3RR, it is not a license to perform three reverts without being blocked. While I probably would not have blocked you for this, I can find no evidence that you stopped and tried to discuss this matter. As such, it would be inappropriate for me to unblock you at this time. — [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg== |
|||
How can Kitty break the 3RR and get a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kittybrewster&oldid=114195159#3RR_warning warning] but I dont and get a block!] Please explain - this is absurd - I am totally baffled!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">'''[[Image:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|left|⚠|link=]]'''</span> Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
:Am advising the blocking administrator of the unblock request. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 01:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you, also now a "new" editor have accused me of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Vintagekits.27_bad_faith_PRODing_.26_spamming spamming here] and I am not even able to reply and stand up for myself because of this!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please note that Kitty has also broken 3RR [[Sir Henry Chamberlain, 2nd Baronet|here]]. If you look at Kittys talk page you will see my attempts to resolve this - my messeges where ignored - this is bang out of order.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:MyContributions|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Vintagekits, please read the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]]: it is ''not'' a licence to perform three reverts. I might have issued only a warning if it was not for the wide extent of your reverts and your previous history of blocks for breaches of [[WP:CIVIL]] etc, and in this case you appear to have been engaged in a spate of [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]]. Your point about notability of baronets could have been discussed rather than spreading NN tags across many articles, and ''should'' have been discussed once challenged. |
|||
== File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
::::Your addition of NN tags to a series of Barons (including [[John Lubbock, 3rd Baron Avebury]] and [[Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander]]) is baffling: some cursory discussion would have established that those people all had seats in the [[House of Lords]], because they were Barons. (Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom all had seats in the House of Lords until 1999). |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:Toi tim.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
::::I should, perhaps, have listed disruptive and tendentious editing as further reasons for the block, but was concerned to to stop the edit warring ASAP, so kept it short. |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Toi tim.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Toi tim.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:O'hanlon.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
::::The reason I did not implement a block on Kittybrewster is that Kittyb was a) not trying to spread the dispute as you were doing, and b) does not have your long history of blocks. As per my warning to [[User:Kittybrewster]], I accept that another admin may make a different call on that case. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:O'hanlon.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:O'hanlon.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
# I am not trying to spread the dispute - I did not break the 3RR and Kitty did so your handling of this is VERY strange to say the least. |
|||
* Moved to Commons and now used on [[Fergal O'Hanlon]] - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
# Not all Barons get a seat in the [[House of Lords]] if you read the [[Baron]] artcile you will see that. And the articles that I added tags to had NO MENTION of them being in the House of Lords so therefore zero proof of notability and therefore I added the prod tags. |
|||
#I stopped reverting Kittys reverts at 00.41 because Kitty was not responding to MY ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THIS - see his talk page for proof and my edit summaries for timings - so this proves that I tried to discuss the tags and that I refused to be drawn into an edit war and shows that Kitty was the editor that refused to act reasonably and discuss (also see my edit summaries) and when it was clear the Kitty would not discuss the issue that I stopped reverting. |
|||
# Kitty kept reverting and I STOPPED not the other way around - see his edit history for proof. # how is Kitty not spreading the dispute by removing the prods without attempting to discuss or to improve any of the articles. |
|||
#I do not have a long history of blocks and have never been blocked for 3RR and infact Kitty has a block for breach of [[WP:NPA]] ON ME so that might give a reasonable admin cause to suspect why his editing against me was so disruptive towards me. The Prod tags are not an attack on articles they are to improve them, I would gladly remove them if and when notablity is shown - if I was being disruptive I would have AfD'ed the article but I didnt. |
|||
# if you look at the discussion above on Mr. Cohen - that editor contacted me to discuss the prod on that page and I helped to add to the article and prove notability - that proves my good faith. I even explained on your talk page why the tags were added. |
|||
==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster50r.jpg== |
|||
There is NO logic to this decision, I have numbered each of my points for ease of discussion. If you have made a mistake I would really appricate if you would just admit it and revert the block--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 02:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Copyright-problem.svg|64px|left|alt=|link=]] |
|||
<sup>Superscript text</sup> |
|||
Thank you for uploading '''[[:File:Poster50r.jpg]]'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free|image copyright tag]]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. |
|||
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Vintagekits, I'll try one last reply tonight: |
|||
:#Please '''read''' [[WP:3RR]], especially where it says "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive."<br />Your behaviour ''was'' clearly disruptive. |
|||
:#No, until 1999 all Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom had a seat in the Lords. If you doubt that, discuss it, but don't engage in edit warring and mass tagging to make a point. |
|||
:#Kittybrewster's reverts offered a reason, and at that point you should have ought to dicuss the reasons. Instead you wrote "Pleae read up on what the notability tags are for before continually removing them without improving the article. By simply removing the tags you are forcing me to AfD the articles."<br />Nobody was "forcing" you to AFD anything; you chose to mass tag rather than discuss the point of disagreement, and your msg to Kittyb did not respond in substance to your musunderstanding about Barons. |
|||
:#the history of the articles shows edit warring, and if you think that the message on his talk page as an attempt to resolve the substantive dispute, then please think again. You simply did not try to address Kittyb's point about automatic notability of Barons, and the article on [[Baron]]s which you have linked to above offers nothing to back your case. |
|||
:#Your block log ''does'' show a history of blocks. |
|||
:#Please read [[Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Conflicts]]: "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." |
|||
== File:Irhm sign.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
In summary, you have been edit warring, restored tags inappropriately, and until the block it appears that you made no attempt to discuss the substantive issues. As you'll see on my talk page, I tink that you may have a point about the notability of baronets; but now that you know it is contentious, please discuss it and try to resolve it rather than mass tagging and edit warring. |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Irhm sign.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Irhm sign.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Possibly unfree File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg == |
|||
I know that this sort of situation is frustrating and even upsetting, but please remember that a block is not an opportunity to take time out and come back to discuss things when you feel less aggrieved. I look forward to seeing you talk these issues through when your block has expired. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 02:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files]] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the [[:File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg|file description page]]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 8#File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg|the discussion]] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --[[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Dont go to bed yet - I am good to reply to this now.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
#You are choosing to ignore that I discussed the edits I made, you are choosing to ignore that the 3RR is not usually invoked unless the editor make FOUR reverts, you and choosing to ignore that I did not do this, you are choosing to ignore that Kittybrewster actually broke the 3rr TWICE tonight you are choosing to ignore the fact that I left messeges on Kittys talk page to try and discuss the issue, you are choosing to ignore that Kittybrewster has already been blocked for NPA on me so therefore has a grudge towards but - but are are also choosing to pick out that it doesnt have to be four revert - this angle IS NEVER taken on someone in my position who has never broken the 3RR before and also discussed his edits. AT EVERY TURN YOU ARE ASSUMING BAD FAITH ON MY BEHALF AND ASSUMING GOOD FAITH ON KITTYS AND INVOKING OBSCURE RULES - why is this especially when I was the one trying to resolve this? |
|||
#READ [[Baron]] and you will see that NOT ALL BARONS AUTOMATICALLY GET INTO THE HOUSE OF LORDS - additionally there is no mention of those articles that they were in the house of lords - I am not a mind reader so therefore must assume that they are not in the house of lords if an article doesnt say they are. |
|||
#Kitty did not EXPLAIN his edits and it is a normal course of events that if an editor removes nn prod tags without showing notability or improving the article that the article goes to AfD - that is what I meant by " you are forcing me to AfD the articles". |
|||
#Read about [[Baron]]s from a Scottish liniage and you will see that they do NOT AUTOMATICALLY GAIN A SEAT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS and nor to Barons after 1999. |
|||
#I am not denying I have had blocks - I have had three - but one was for three hours and another was overturned and NONE were for 3RR. |
|||
== File:Grave of emmet.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT I DID NOT ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS IT WHEN [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kittybrewster#Notability_tags HERE] is the PROOF and is timed at 00.32 and the block was at 01.18 (funnily enought Kitty stopped editing 3 minutes after my block - he must have been laughing his way off to bed!)- there is NO LOGIC behind any of your arguements. And I stopped reverting at 00.41 but Kitty continued to revert for another half and hour - NO LOGIC. |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Grave of emmet.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Grave of emmet.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: Moved to Commons. We'll have it for ga.wikipedia - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
You have made a wrong decision here and please be big enough to admit it and especially as you just warned Kitty - why just warn Kitty and block me when it was Kitty that would not enter into a discussion and DID actually break 3RR TWICE - I am so close to swearing and getting a long ban because of this disgrace which I will NEVER forget or forgive. |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Bresli an phob.jpg== |
|||
Show my ONE thing that I did that Kitty didnt, show me one time that Kitty tried to improve an article and prove notability, show me one time that Kitty tried to discuss the issue. |
|||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">'''[[Image:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|left|⚠|link=]]'''</span> Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Bresli an phob.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:MyContributions|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The prods I added were in good faith, only [[User:Newport]] tried to discuss the prod with me, on [[Sir Bernard Waley-Cohen and I helped him prove notability, I left messeges on Kittys talk page to discuss the tags - KITTY IGNORED my messeges and would not discuss. |
|||
--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 02:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:From the [[Baron]] page - a baron is "being the lowest rank in the peerage". "In Scotland, the rank of baron is a rank related to feudal nobility of Scotland and refers to a holder of a feudal barony, a feudal superiority over a proper territorial entity erected into a free barony by a Crown Charter, '''and not a rank of Peerage."''' - therefore they do not automatically get a seat in the House of Lords, i even informed Kitty of this on a number of occasions as you can see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lubbock%2C_3rd_Baron_Avebury&diff=prev&oldid=114180179 here] - enough said - but you will probably choose to ignore this also. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I am so peed off about this that I am still up - I am still astounded by the wharped logic that you have used to come to your decision and your blindly ignoring of Kitty breaches and my attempts to discuss the issue on his tyalk page - I am dismayed, outraged and (I had just typed out a long paragrapgh with swear words and abuse towards you but I have now deleted it and hope you come you your senses and will look a fresh on this subject.) Here is the timeline of events today. |
|||
== File:All 350.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
# 14:31, 9 March 2007 - Couter rev (who is a friend and close counterpart of Kitty breach a personal attack on me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=113834580&oldid=113699261 here] |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:All 350.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:All 350.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
# 11:57, 10 March 2007 - Although Kitty has been told to stay off each others talk page unless totally needed Kitty leaves this comment reading Couters comment - which was totally uncalled for and had nothing to do with Kitty and he had no business butting in. See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=114047280&oldid=114046765 here] |
|||
# 12:03, 10 March 2007 - I informed Kitty [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=next&oldid=114047280 here] that I considered that a breach of policy and that he shouldnt page on my talk page without good reason. |
|||
# 18:25, 10 March 2007 - I was then drawn to the actions of [[User:O'Donoghue]] (who I have a massive suspicions is a sockpuppet of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kieran_Fleming&diff=104204172&oldid=104184762 New Identity] by this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kieran_Fleming&diff=prev&oldid=114100554 here]. I then went through his edits as history edit pattern and history bearing a strong corallation to that of [[User:New identity]] and [[User:Inthegloaming]]. |
|||
# 18:26, 10 March 2007 - Found a number of articles that he had created that should no proof of notability, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Una_Pope-Hennessy&action=history here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daphne_Purves&action=history here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gillian_Pugh&diff=prev&oldid=114104489 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gladys_Hartman&diff=prev&oldid=114105079 here] all with highly dubious claims to notability. |
|||
# 18:54, 10 March 2007 to 19:24, 10 March 2007 and 20:23, 10 March 2007 to 21:29, 10 March 2007 - I then here went through a category with a load of people with no obvious claims to notability. |
|||
# 23:50, 10 March 2007 - Kitty systematically remove ALL of the tags without improving or adding to any of the articles. |
|||
# 00:17, 11 March 2007 - I began re adding the tag, as I have been asked to stay off his talk page I initially tried to get my messege through in the talk summary as can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_Fraser%2C_1st_Baron_Fraser_of_Allander&diff=prev&oldid=114179807 here] |
|||
# 00:32, 11 March 2007 - My first attempt to discuss the issue with Kitty was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kittybrewster&diff=114183089&oldid=113976391 here] |
|||
# 00:35, 11 March 2007 - I got no reply from Kitty and he continued to revert or change to expand but I tried to discuss again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kittybrewster&diff=next&oldid=114183089 here] |
|||
# 00:42, 11 March 2007 - I got no reply from Kitty and Kitty kept on reverting the tags so I stopped reverting as it was turning into an edit war and becoming childish. |
|||
# 00:44, 11 March 2007 - This is where I gave up on the revertions as there was no communication coming back. |
|||
# 00:45, 11 March 2007 - you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kittybrewster see from Kittys edit history that from here on in he kept reverting and has the "top" edit on the articles. |
|||
# 01:18, 11 March 2007 - you blocked my despite the fact I had stopped editing. |
|||
# 01:21, 11 March 2007 - Kitty has his job done, stops editing and goes to bed. |
|||
== File:JimBreen.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
Now that is an exactly timeline of what has happened.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:JimBreen.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:JimBreen.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Clarification motion == |
|||
:If I may interject here, VK was not adding prod tags he was adding {{tl|nn}} tags which are not subject to the same rules as prod tags. nn tags do no propose an article for deletion, they merely suggest that an editor believes an article does not meet notability guidelines, and that other editors should improve them. Removal of those tags without improving the article or explaining why the person already meets notability guidelines isn't particularly helpful. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 08:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A case ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles|The Troubles]]) in which you were involved has been modified by {{oldid2|631252824|Motion|motion}} which changed the wording of the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions|discretionary sanctions section]] to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Not all encyclopaedias have huge entries on every subject. Some just have a few lines. Vintagekits is a serious disruptive and very rude influence on Wikipedia. Those of us who are attempting to compile a decent encylopaedia according to the Founder's wishes feel harrassed, threatened, and oppressed by his frenetic attacks and arrogance all of which he dresses up under Wikipedia rules. It is unacceptable. [[User:David Lauder|David Lauder]] 08:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== |
==Happy New Year== |
||
Hi VK, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. That’s assuming, of course, I’m not already seeing you and am too stupid to realise it. Be happy! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Giano|<span style="color:blue">Giano</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Giano|'''(talk)''']] 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Please see timeline for details of me stopping the edit war and my unanswered attempts to discuss the issue with Kitty.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 05:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:52, 19 September 2023
Extended content
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Since you continue to be disruptive..Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. SirFozzie (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement. Decline reason: You clearly don't want to understand the meaning of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. Vintagekits (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Decline reason: No one appears to have objected to your first edit to that thread, but the second one constituted a personal attack. Per your block log, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I suggest that you consider modifying your behaviour to reflect Wikipedia standards, rather than implying that you are being singled out due to cultural differences. Dekimasuよ! 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
BanAs you already know, you have been indef'd and banned per this ANI thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....
Jeez Vk; you break my heart! Why keep effin' and blinding at people when you know what will happen????? Still, hope you get back. Maybe look up "apology" in the dictionary and practice in front of a mirror - without head-butting the glass :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Not banned yetThe debate about blocking or banning is still ongoing at ANI, as such VK should be permitted to edit his talk page. Everyone has a right to defend themselves before a sentence is passed. There seems to be a lot of unssemly and undue haste on this matter - why? Giano 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point:
Posted here by Giano 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Vk. It's your usage of foul language, that's getting ya into these block problems. Personally, I don't mind the colorful words, but it appears an increasing numbers of editors do. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Vk. I decided to delete my 'vote' from your Ban case. I shall have to take a neutral stand on it. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that certain people have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over VK's emails. They frankly look like reasonable responses given his limitations on communication at the time. I have taken some time to look over some of the troubles articles and there does seem to be a systematic Britsh POV bias going on. No wow I will lay my cards on the table here... I am a Brit... but being from an Irish family I am probably more aware of and attuned to the issues at hand than most editors. Most editors seem to take the Britsh POV and are backed by what would seem to be a a number of admins all with either a British POV or American ones with a strong anti terrorism POV. Take the "British Isles" as an example. Geographically and geologically speaking the term seems fine to me - simply meaning the group of Islands the biggest of which happens to be called Great Britain. That is pretty standard terminology for any group of Islands to be refered to by the biggest. Now the term is also used in political and economic sense where its use is not so clear cut and can have overtones that are not welcome that most British editors are simply unaware of, and the term is used in this way, which can be considered an inflamatory way, throughout wikipedia. There are alternatives to the British Isles which can and should be used outside of purely geographic or geological articles yet the weight of editors on the British side surpresses this. It is no wonder to me that editors who try and redress this balance problem feel like they are beating their head against a wall sometimes because frankly they are, though I would say it is not a wall of anti Irish sentiment but one of ignorance to the issue. --LiamE (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I've changed my mind (yet again). I'm once again, opposing the indef-ban, as I've no evidence of sock-puppetry (since the last Banning case). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Official statement requestedJehochman has asked for you to write up and post an official statement to be contributed to the ANI discussion before it's closed. Can you create one here and indicate when you are done editing and want it copied over? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep agree a full and thorough Arbcom case. To cut out the BS insist on Diff's for any and every accusation. --Domer48'fenian' 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Lift the blockGiven the nature of the block and my suspicion, based on personal experience, that this is a tactic in a banning process I believe the ban should be lifted before any further proceedings. Here we have a trial in progress while the accused has already been locked away without bail - all the better to provoke him. Not the circumstances for a fair assessment of the many issues at play here. It's not as if Vk can abscond while out on bail. I think my proposal here will tease out the real agenda of the block and ban lobby. Sarah777 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
MentorshipWould you be willing to have me, and likely some others (which will need to include people you don't care for - so to be acceptable for those who do not appreciate the effort being expended to keep you editing this project), as mentor(s)? This would run concurrent to Jehochman's suggested limiting you to sport/boxing topics and ban from Ireland/Troubles related areas. I am asking the community the same thing at ANI, and will only accept supping from the poisoned chalice if there are two positive responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Completely unconnected questionIs Manny Pacquiao's fight on Miguel Cotto British TV tonight, if so when ? I can't find it anywhere and the dog has eaten today's newspaper? someone watching this page is bound to know. Giano 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Block and associated discussionI have closed the discussion at the incident noticeboard regarding your block. At this time, there is a strong, albeit not unanimous, consensus that the block is to remain. You may, as normal, request that the arbitration committee review the matter. As I stated in my closing rationale, if you post a request for arbitration on this page, I will move it to requests for arbitration for you. Whatever the outcome here is, I urge you to strongly consider why things have come to this point. I hope that you will do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Take a peek at here, another option. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Pacman, WBO welterweight championPacman TKO's Cotto in 12th rd. I was close, eh? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The Third RoadHi Vintagekits, the two paths laid before you are both shithouse because both of those paths mean more unhappy work for me. Come over to Wikisource for a while! Bring all your friends!! ;-) Wikisource needs someone with your passion. s:Wikisource:Sports doesn't mention boxing. Someone needs to create s:Wikisource:Boxing We have a few poor quality works in s:Category:Boxing. As an example, I have set up s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu and s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 2.djvu, where you can clean up and improve existing biographies written long ago. e.g. Thomas Smallwood. Simply log in, click edit, and fix the OCR errors. The Wikisource community will help you with the syntax voodoo; you'll get the hang of things pretty quickly. I'll be happy to set up projects for any old book that interests you; any topic, any language. I'd rather spend my time helping you settle into Wikisource rather than spend that same time in arbitration or investigating socks. After a few months, you can then appeal your Wikipedia ban either to Arbcom or to the community. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctionsAs a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here. For the Arbitration Committee Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) VK is blocked indefinitely, not retiredWhy is the tagging of his user page with {indefblocked} even up for debate? Why are certain people so absolutely desparate to make themselves look like tag teaming edit warriors that are utterly blind to reality? Considering there are already descriptions of this nature of these exact editors before arbcom right now, you would think they might take the hint and actually stop acting like tag teaming edit warriors. It is precisely this sort of lack of clue about reality that got VK indeffed in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The next person who edit wars over the tag earns themselves an indefinite block of their own, and I will press for a formal ban. In the face of any objection, we should err on the side of decency, compassion, and polite behavior, and not screw around with the user and usertalk space associated with others.--Tznkai (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"All we are saying.... is give peace a chance". GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) The best solution I've found in these situations is often to delete the userpage altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My reasoning for threatening an indefinite block are simple. This kind of edit warring is disruptive, and is all about making silly points in a conflict that has nothing to do with improving an encyclopedia. Quite frankly, its often grave-dancing behavior, which should be strictly discouraged. I have no tolerance for such displays, and neither should any of you.--Tznkai (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Why is this editor's talk page being vandalized?An indefinite block is not a ban. If Vk chooses to retire that's their decision. Their block was unseemly enough and pushed by the worst kind of partisans, but now to have this abusive antagonistic and disruptive display is outrageous. Anyone who alters this editor's talk page from
Not appropriate.This back and forth bickering is not appropriate on a banned users talk page. The hint should have been taken when the user page was protected. If it continues I will protect this page and take a trout to those who led me to do so. Take it to ANI(or even better just drop it), arguing here is nothing more than a drama magnet. Chillum 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Trouts all around. Take a hint, this should be discussed in a neutral venue or not at all. VK is not participating in this discussion and that is the only reason to have a discussion here. I am protecting this page for 24 hours, hopefully by tomorrow more sense will be shown. Chillum 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) AfD nomination of Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC) RfD nomination of 'The Great White Hope'.I have nominated 'The Great White Hope'. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Request for feedbackAlright VK, Kattis from the HB here. Myself and the Da finally finished out wiki page and was wondering what the next step is re; feedback. Type this into the wiki search bar... Free State Intelligence Department - Oriel House I'm not sure if the page is properly live yet as its not coming up when I google search it. Could you make the other members of the 'The Irish Republicanism WikiProject' group aware as I couldn't see a 'talk' tab to share this. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.209.68 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Unreferenced BLPsHello Vintagekits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 874 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) The article Mark McAllister has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Articles for deletion nomination of The Lying Down GameOrphaned non-free image File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpgPLEASE NOTE:
Clothing store listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clothing store. Since you had some involvement with the Clothing store redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Kieran Nugent.jpgA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kieran Nugent.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Saibo (Δ) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Unblock request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway. Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. In particular, you should see WP:NOTTHEM and would have to address the fact that stringent terms have already been attempted before (User talk:Vintagekits/terms). See also comments at the ANI discussion about this request. Rd232 talk 11:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. See discussion at WP:ANI#Vintagekits seeks unblock. Sandstein 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
VK, I recommend you admit responsibility for your own indef block. If you don't? well you see the trend at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This editor need to be unblocked. his opponoents, who have behaved in far worse fashion, have been unblocked. What is the difference with VK? Please explain that to me. Giacomo 11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. apologies for the shoddy original unblock request, one would think that with all my experience that I would know what the correct procedure was, however I am obviously out of practice.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
To focus on socking is a red herring. Yes, Vk has socked before—persistently—but there is nothing to suggest he has done so during the length on this block, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Expecting (or demanding) an apology for socking is both pointless and punitive. Giano has a point beneath the nationalist spin: every block should be reviewed in the context of the reasons for the block, not other sundry past crimes. Vk seems to have addressed the reasons for his block on the second attempt. But, in my opinion, a major concern remains: denial of responsibility ("The actually block was malicious in the first place", "there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished"). If you don't demonstrate that you appreciate why your actions led to a block (and instead blame the actions of others) its unlikely you can make the judgments required to avoid making the same comments in future. My reading of both requests is that Vk believes he was blocked unfairly by a conspiracy of others. Only if the community accepts this should he be unblocked. Rockpocket 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I support having Vk's indef block lifted, therefore I aint requesting anything from VK in his unblock request. I merely observed about the kind of unblock request he'll need, to get the community to support his unblock. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) You're doing fine Vk. Remaining patient, no foul language usage, no socking. Such an approach helps & I believe at some point in 2011, you'll be unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editor in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. Decline reason: At this point, there's no way for you to be unblocked without a community consensus at AN or ANI (or appeal to BASC). Trouble is that starting such a thread so soon after the last one is unlikely to accomplish much. Consensus can change, but rarely does it overnight. My best advice would be to either wait a few months and try for return per WP:OFFER or to email BASC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor...Would you be willing to accept such a condition? I am unsure but I imagine such a condition would not be indefinite but perhaps for say six months or until the community could see you moving forward in a collaborative manner and a measure of trust and support was there to lift the restriction.Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblock Request - Take III
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editors in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project? Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am here for. Will I disagree with people? I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues which is the main thing. That is about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. Decline reason: Enough si enough. I have revoked your access to this talk page, please direct any further appeals to the Arbitration Committee via their Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the community is not receptive to unblocking you. Any unblock at this point will have to come from the Committee. Courcelles 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Folks, this bickering is pointless. Whatever anyone's view of the unblock request, it's going to need an ANI discussion to consider it, and a finger-pointing exercise here does not nothing to assist anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
UserpageThe userpage should be changed to indef block, as that's what VK's status currently is. He's certainly not retired. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
- I'm sorry you feel you have been treated unfairly, there have been several community discussions wherein a clear consensus was established that you should remain blocked. Emailing me as if this was all my doing isn't going to change that one bit. You may contact WP:BASC if you want to appeal this any further, I'd appreciate it if you did not email me any further regarding this as I couldn't override the community's decision even if I wanted to. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Toi tim.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Toi tim.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:O'hanlon.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:O'hanlon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Moved to Commons and now used on Fergal O'Hanlon - Alison ❤ 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster50r.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Poster50r.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Irhm sign.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irhm sign.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Grave of emmet.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grave of emmet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bresli an phob.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bresli an phob.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:All 350.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:All 350.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:JimBreen.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JimBreen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Clarification motion
A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Hi VK, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. That’s assuming, of course, I’m not already seeing you and am too stupid to realise it. Be happy! Giano (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)